Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 6926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=6926,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 6926, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concept of relevance has played a major role in the evaluation of information retrieval and its research without much consideration of users. While methodological deficiencies have been noted and criticized, the study of relevance is still suffering from much discussion of alternative methods. This article discusses the need to develop the concept of user-based relevance for the benefit of users and for the meaningful development of future research in information retrieval. Some of the characteristics of users' criteria of relevance are examined from the literature. The use of a qualitative research approach is suggested as an alternative methodology for studying user-based relevance along with a discussion of the essential characteristics and the core philosophical assumptions underlying the inquiry paradigm

Type

a

0.0021393995 = product of:
  0.004278799 = sum of:
    0.004278799 = product of:
      0.008557598 = sum of:
        0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008557598 = score(doc=4997,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study current policies and practices of scholarly journals on evaluating manuscripts for publication that had been previously published electronically. Various electronic forms were considered: a manuscript having been e-mailed to members of a listserv, attached to a personal or institutional home page, stored in an electronic preprint collection, or published in an electronic proceedings or electronic journal. Factors that might affect the consideration of such manuscripts were also examined, including characteristics of the journal, the previously published work, and the submitted manuscript. A sample of 202 scholarly journals in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities was selected for study. A questionnaire and cover letters were sent to the journal editors in the summer and fall of 1997, with an overall return rate of 57.4%. Results are reported for all journals, with comparisons being made between journals edited in the Unites States and outside the Unites States, by journal impact factor, and by discipline. The findings suggest that editorial policies regarding prior electronic publication are in an early stage of development. Most journal editors do not have a formal policy regarding the evaluation of work previously published in electronic form, nor are they currently evaluating such a policy. Editors disagreed widely on the importance of the various factors that might affect their decision to consider a work previously published electronically. The form or type of prior electronic publication was an important variable. Although some editors currently have a fairly rigid and negative posture towards work previously published electronically, most are willing to consider certain forms of such work for publication in their journals. Probably the most significant results of the study were the many differences in practices among scholarly disciplines. The findings of this study reveal how the Internet and the World Wide Web are currently affecting manuscript consideration policies of scholarly journals at this early stage of Web and Internet publishing

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=7375,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7375, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines the degree and extent of bibliographic data of selected electronic journals in the national bibliographic utilities, and the means to provide access to them at individual libraries. The study was limited to networked electronic journals, and each title was searched in OCLC to determine its availability in a national database as well as its holdings libraries

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5336,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5336, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Experimental research in information retrieval (IR) depends on the idea of relevance. Because of its key role in IR, recent questions about relevance have raised issues of methododlogical concern and have shaken the philosophical foundations of IR theory development. Despite an existing set of theoretical definitions of this concept, our understanding of relevance from users' perspectives is still limited. Using naturalistic inquiry methodology, this article reports an emprical study of user-based relevance interpretations. A model is presented that reflects the nature of the thought process of users who are evaluating bibliographic citations produced by a document retrieval system. Three major categories of variables affecting relevance assessments - internal context, external context, and problem context - are idetified and described. Users' relevance assessments involve multiple layers of interpretations that are derived from individuals' experiences, perceptions, and private knowledge related to the particular information problems at hand

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5151, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a