Search (1075 results, page 1 of 54)

0.09657613 = sum of:
  0.021160059 = product of:
    0.084640235 = sum of:
      0.084640235 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084640235 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.07541607 = sum of:
    0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03669784 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034041367 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035314094 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = 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)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.168-185

0.09037849 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07541607 = sum of:
    0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03669784 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034041367 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035314094 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810

0.09037849 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.07541607 = sum of:
    0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03669784 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034041367 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
    0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035314094 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052129436 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:15:06

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827

0.063979715 = sum of:
  0.051747102 = product of:
    0.20698841 = sum of:
      0.20698841 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20698841 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44195393 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.012232613 = product of:
    0.03669784 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.06207339 = sum of:
  0.031098805 = product of:
    0.12439522 = sum of:
      0.12439522 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12439522 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.219-233

0.058400445 = sum of:
  0.020947387 = product of:
    0.08378955 = sum of:
      0.08378955 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08378955 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.037453055 = product of:
    0.05617958 = sum of:
      0.006739847 = weight(_text_:s in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006739847 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.049439732 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049439732 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707

0.056366652 = sum of:
  0.025392069 = product of:
    0.101568274 = sum of:
      0.101568274 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.101568274 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.415-433

0.05371248 = sum of:
  0.051747102 = product of:
    0.20698841 = sum of:
      0.20698841 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20698841 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44195393 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.0019653793 = product of:
    0.005896138 = sum of:
      0.005896138 = weight(_text_:s in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005896138 = score(doc=1000,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Pages

109 S

0.052650325 = sum of:
  0.025915675 = product of:
    0.1036627 = sum of:
      0.1036627 = weight(_text_:authors in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036627 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02673465 = product of:
    0.040101975 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 75(2023) no.2, S.132-151

0.05172783 = sum of:
  0.025915675 = product of:
    0.1036627 = sum of:
      0.1036627 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1036627 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.025812155 = product of:
    0.03871823 = sum of:
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
      0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035314094 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.8, S.1039-1058

0.050036483 = sum of:
  0.017954903 = product of:
    0.07181961 = sum of:
      0.07181961 = weight(_text_:authors in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07181961 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5670, 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=5670)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03208158 = product of:
    0.04812237 = sum of:
      0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044037405 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.314-324

0.050036483 = sum of:
  0.017954903 = product of:
    0.07181961 = sum of:
      0.07181961 = weight(_text_:authors in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07181961 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1165, 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=1165)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.03208158 = product of:
    0.04812237 = sum of:
      0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044037405 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 1165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=1165,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1165, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1165)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

University of Victoria Libraries has implemented faceted vocabularies, particularly FAST, in its digital collections platform (Vault). The process involved migrating a variety of standardized (pre-coordinated Library of Congress subject headings) and non-standardized metadata to conform to a URI-centric metadata application profile. The authors argue that faceted vocabularies and FAST have helped to create a robust and intuitive user navigation in the platform and allowed for an efficient and straightforward metadata creation process. Maintaining FAST as linked data within Vault has required putting in place some technical processes to keep URIs and textual labels up to date and solutions (FAST Updater) have been locally developed.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.5-6, S.535-557

0.04969528 = sum of:
  0.04787974 = product of:
    0.19151896 = sum of:
      0.19151896 = weight(_text_:authors in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19151896 = score(doc=152,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.0018155396 = product of:
    0.0054466184 = sum of:
      0.0054466184 = weight(_text_:s in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054466184 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.4, S.449-4473-477

0.04892949 = sum of:
  0.017954903 = product of:
    0.07181961 = sum of:
      0.07181961 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07181961 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.5, S.393-403

0.04892949 = sum of:
  0.017954903 = product of:
    0.07181961 = sum of:
      0.07181961 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07181961 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.030974586 = product of:
    0.046461876 = sum of:
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.10, S.1285-1294

0.046972215 = sum of:
  0.021160059 = product of:
    0.084640235 = sum of:
      0.084640235 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084640235 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.025812155 = product of:
    0.03871823 = sum of:
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035314094 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Journal of documentation. 79(2023) no.1, S.144-159

0.04524964 = product of:
  0.09049928 = sum of:
    0.09049928 = sum of:
      0.044037405 = weight(_text_:k in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044037405 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
      0.004084964 = weight(_text_:s in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.004084964 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
      0.042376913 = weight(_text_:22 in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042376913 = score(doc=299,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 299, 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=299)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 8(2021) Nr.2, S.1-22

0.04243591 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
  0.02747349 = product of:
    0.041210234 = sum of:
      0.005896138 = weight(_text_:s in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005896138 = score(doc=5843,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 5843, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5843)
      0.035314094 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035314094 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1825484 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = 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)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 72(2020) no.1, S.130-147

0.04169707 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02673465 = product of:
    0.040101975 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.172-187

0.04169707 = sum of:
  0.01496242 = product of:
    0.05984968 = sum of:
      0.05984968 = weight(_text_:authors in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05984968 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23764841 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02673465 = product of:
    0.040101975 = sum of:
      0.03669784 = weight(_text_:k in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03669784 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18609051 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.0034041367 = weight(_text_:s in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034041367 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.056677084 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052129436 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.9, S.1336-1355