Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021568187 = product of:
  0.043136373 = sum of:
    0.043136373 = product of:
      0.08627275 = sum of:
        0.08627275 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08627275 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.014401315 = product of:
  0.02880263 = sum of:
    0.02880263 = product of:
      0.05760526 = sum of:
        0.05760526 = weight(_text_:y in 895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05760526 = score(doc=895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21668325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.26585007 = fieldWeight in 895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8124003 = idf(docFreq=976, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Die digitale Transformation ermöglichte eine Effizienzsteigerung und Beschleunigung der Publikationsprozesse und eröffnete damit neue Wachstumsoptionen auf dem Markt der wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Diese Entwicklung wirft grundsätzliche Fragen auf: Welche Auswirkungen haben diese Beschleunigung und Wachstumsraten auf die Funktion des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens? Werden sie allein durch Effizienzsteigerungen erreicht oder hat die Entwicklung weiterreichende Auswirkungen auf die im Publikationsprozess oft zeitintensiven Begutachtungsprozesse? Was zeichnet vorbildliche Begutachtungsverfahren aus und wie lassen sich mögliche Zielkonflikte erkennen? Die Relevanz des Themas erschien Kolleg:innen aus verschiedenen deutsch-schweizerischen Bibliotheken so groß, dass sie gemeinsam mit empirischen Sozialwissenschaftlern der TU Dresden das Verbundprojekt «Evaluating the Quality Assurance Process in Scholarly Publishing» (EQUAP^2) gründeten. Das Projekt wurde über Eigenleistungen der beteiligten Akteure und eine finanzielle Unterstützung von Schweizer Bibliotheken und Verbänden sowie der TU9-Bibliotheken ermöglicht. In einem Websurvey konnten mehr als 3.200 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus 25 deutschen und schweizerischen Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen zu ihren Erwartungen an den Begutachtungsprozess und ihren verlagsspezifischen Erfahrungen befragt werden. Zusätzlich wurden zwei faktorielle Erhebungsdesigns in die Umfrage implementiert, um die Best Practice der Peer-Review- und Entscheidungsprozesse bei Zeitschriften zu bewerten. Die Studienergebnisse<https://zenodo.org/record/7612114#.Y-OFPHbMJPY> sind auf der Plattform Zenodo<https://zenodo.org/communities/equap2/?page=1&size=20> veröffentlicht. Die Umfrage zeigt, dass die Erwartungen an den Peer-Review-Prozess über alle Disziplinen hinweg sehr homogen sind, sich aber abhängig von der Rolle der Forschenden im Publikationsprozess deutlich unterscheiden. Die Antworten geben Hinweise auf potentielle Interessenkonflikte sowie diskutable Verlagspraktiken, die in wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und insbesondere bei Entscheidungen zur Publikationsfinanzierung berücksichtigt werden sollten. Auf der Projekthomepage<https://www.slub-dresden.de/ueber-uns/projekte/evaluating-the-quality-assurance-process-in-scholarly-publishing-equap2> finden Sie weitere Informationen zum Projekt. Das Projektteam ist über die Mailadresse equap2@slub-dresden.de<mailto:equap2@slub-dresden.de> erreichbar."

0.012200809 = product of:
  0.024401618 = sum of:
    0.024401618 = product of:
      0.048803236 = sum of:
        0.048803236 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048803236 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.010675708 = product of:
  0.021351416 = sum of:
    0.021351416 = product of:
      0.04270283 = sum of:
        0.04270283 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04270283 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.009150607 = product of:
  0.018301213 = sum of:
    0.018301213 = product of:
      0.036602426 = sum of:
        0.036602426 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036602426 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.007625506 = product of:
  0.015251012 = sum of:
    0.015251012 = product of:
      0.030502023 = sum of:
        0.030502023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030502023 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0061004045 = product of:
  0.012200809 = sum of:
    0.012200809 = product of:
      0.024401618 = sum of:
        0.024401618 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401618 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15767346 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045026023 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.