Search (203 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) 0.05 
    0.052516345 = sum of:
  0.031235056 = product of:
    0.124940224 = sum of:
      0.124940224 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.124940224 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.021281289 = product of:
    0.042562578 = sum of:
      0.042562578 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042562578 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.05 
    0.046784606 = sum of:
  0.025503317 = product of:
    0.10201327 = sum of:
      0.10201327 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10201327 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.021281289 = product of:
    0.042562578 = sum of:
      0.042562578 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042562578 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  3. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.05 
    0.04586733 = sum of:
  0.021039162 = product of:
    0.08415665 = sum of:
      0.08415665 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08415665 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.02482817 = product of:
    0.04965634 = sum of:
      0.04965634 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04965634 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  4. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.04 
    0.043763623 = sum of:
  0.026029216 = product of:
    0.104116865 = sum of:
      0.104116865 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.104116865 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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.
  5. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.04 
    0.03931486 = sum of:
  0.018033568 = product of:
    0.07213427 = sum of:
      0.07213427 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07213427 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.021281289 = product of:
    0.042562578 = sum of:
      0.042562578 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042562578 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  6. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.04 
    0.03931486 = sum of:
  0.018033568 = product of:
    0.07213427 = sum of:
      0.07213427 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07213427 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.021281289 = product of:
    0.042562578 = sum of:
      0.042562578 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042562578 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  7. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.04 
    0.038987175 = sum of:
  0.021252764 = product of:
    0.08501106 = sum of:
      0.08501106 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08501106 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  8. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.04 
    0.038987175 = sum of:
  0.021252764 = product of:
    0.08501106 = sum of:
      0.08501106 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08501106 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  9. Liang, Z.; Mao, J.; Li, G.: Bias against scientific novelty : a prepublication perspective (2023) 0.04 
    0.036640856 = sum of:
  0.018033568 = product of:
    0.07213427 = sum of:
      0.07213427 = weight(_text_:authors in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07213427 = score(doc=845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 845, 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=845)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018607289 = product of:
    0.037214577 = sum of:
      0.037214577 = weight(_text_:u in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037214577 = score(doc=845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17144279 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=845)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Novel ideas often experience resistance from incumbent forces. While evidence of the bias against novelty has been widely identified in science, there is still a lack of large-scale quantitative work to study this problem occurring in the prepublication process of manuscripts. This paper examines the association between manuscript novelty and handling time of publication based on 778,345 articles in 1,159 journals indexed by PubMed. Measuring the novelty as the extent to which manuscripts disrupt existing knowledge, we found systematic evidence that higher novelty is associated with longer handling time. Matching and fixed-effect models were adopted to confirm the statistical significance of this pattern. Moreover, submissions from prestigious authors and institutions have the advantage of shorter handling time, but this advantage is diminishing as manuscript novelty increases. In addition, we found longer handling time is negatively related to the impact of manuscripts, while the relationships between novelty and 3- and 5-year citations are U-shape. This study expands the existing knowledge of the novelty bias by examining its existence in the prepublication process of manuscripts.
  10. 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 
    0.035010897 = sum of:
  0.020823373 = product of:
    0.08329349 = sum of:
      0.08329349 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08329349 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.014187526 = product of:
    0.028375052 = sum of:
      0.028375052 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028375052 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  11. Ilhan, A.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.: Data privacy-related behavior and concerns of activity tracking technology users from Germany and the USA (2021) 0.03 
    0.033240482 = product of:
  0.066480964 = sum of:
    0.066480964 = sum of:
      0.03101215 = weight(_text_:u in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03101215 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17144279 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose This investigation aims to examine the differences and similarities between activity tracking technology users from two regions (the USA and Germany) in their intended privacy-related behavior. The focus lies on data handling after hypothetical discontinuance of use, data protection and privacy policy seeking, and privacy concerns. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected through an online survey in 2019. In order to identify significant differences between participants from Germany and the USA, the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test were applied. Findings The intensity of several privacy-related concerns was significantly different between the two groups. The majority of the participants did not inform themselves about the respective data privacy policies or terms and conditions before installing an activity tracking application. The majority of the German participants knew that they could request the deletion of all their collected data. In contrast, only 35% out of 68 participants from the US knew about this option. Research limitations/implications This study intends to raise awareness about managing the collected health and fitness data after stopping to use activity tracking technologies. Furthermore, to reduce privacy and security concerns, the involvement of the government, companies and users is necessary to handle and share data more considerably and in a sustainable way. Originality/value This study sheds light on users of activity tracking technologies from a broad perspective (here, participants from the USA and Germany). It incorporates not only concerns and the privacy paradox but (intended) user behavior, including seeking information on data protection and privacy policy and handling data after hypothetical discontinuance of use of the technology.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  12. Bergman, O.; Israeli, T.; Whittaker, S.: Factors hindering shared files retrieval (2020) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 5843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=5843,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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
  13. Kim, J.(im); Kim, J.(enna): Effect of forename string on author name disambiguation (2020) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real-world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine-learning-based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full-length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full-string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances.
    Date
    11. 7.2020 13:22:58
  14. Cox, A.; Fulton, C.: Geographies of information behaviour : a conceptual exploration (2022) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 678, 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=678)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 678, 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=678)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose This article examines the relation between place, space and information behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Concepts of place and space are explored through a comparison of three leisure pursuits: running, urban exploration and genealogy, based on the authors' research and the published literature. Findings A socially constructed meaning of place is central to each leisure activity but how it is experienced physically, emotionally and imaginatively are different. Places have very different meanings within each practice. Mirroring this, information behaviours are also very different: such as the sources used, the type of information created and how it is shared or not shared. Information behaviour contributes to the meanings associated with place in particular social practices. Research limitations/implications Meaning attached to place can be understood as actively constructed within social practices. Rather than context for information behaviours in the sense of an outside, containing, even constraining, environment, the meaning of place can be seen as actively constructed within social practices and by the information behaviours that are part of them. Originality/value The paper adds a new perspective to the understanding of place and space in the study of information behaviour.
    Date
    5. 6.2022 17:20:22
  15. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  16. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  17. Barité, M.; Parentelli, V.; Rodríguez Casaballe, N.; Suárez, M.V.: Interdisciplinarity and postgraduate teaching of knowledge organization (KO) : elements for a necessary dialogue (2023) 0.03 
    0.032762382 = sum of:
  0.015027974 = product of:
    0.060111895 = sum of:
      0.060111895 = weight(_text_:authors in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060111895 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2386896 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017734408 = product of:
    0.035468817 = sum of:
      0.035468817 = weight(_text_:22 in 1125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035468817 = score(doc=1125,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833482 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052357826 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1125, 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=1125)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinarity implies the previous existence of disciplinary fields and not their dissolution. As a general objective, we propose to establish an initial approach to the emphasis given to interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO, through the teaching staff responsible for postgraduate courses focused on -or related to the KO, in Ibero-American universities. For conducting the research, the framework and distribution of a survey addressed to teachers is proposed, based on four lines of action: 1. The way teachers manage the concept of interdisciplinarity. 2. The place that teachers give to interdisciplinarity in KO. 3. Assessment of interdisciplinary content that teachers incorporate into their postgraduate courses. 4. Set of teaching strategies and resources used by teachers to include interdisciplinarity in the teaching of KO. The study analyzed 22 responses. Preliminary results show that KO teachers recognize the influence of other disciplines in concepts, theories, methods, and applications, but no consensus has been reached regarding which disciplines and authors are the ones who build interdisciplinary bridges. Among other conclusions, the study strongly suggests that environmental and social tensions are reflected in subject representation, especially in the construction of friendly knowl­edge organization systems with interdisciplinary visions, and in the expressions through which information is sought.
  18. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.03 
    0.03118429 = product of:
  0.06236858 = sum of:
    0.06236858 = product of:
      0.24947432 = sum of:
        0.24947432 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24947432 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44389024 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052357826 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  19. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.03 
    0.02598691 = product of:
  0.05197382 = sum of:
    0.05197382 = product of:
      0.20789528 = sum of:
        0.20789528 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20789528 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44389024 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052357826 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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."
  20. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.03 
    0.02598691 = product of:
  0.05197382 = sum of:
    0.05197382 = product of:
      0.20789528 = sum of:
        0.20789528 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20789528 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44389024 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052357826 = 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)
  0.5 = 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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 139
  • d 62
  • m 1
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 181
  • el 35
  • m 12
  • s 7
  • p 3
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications