Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.03 
    0.033280488 = product of:
  0.04992073 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
    0.043284103 = product of:
      0.08656821 = sum of:
        0.08656821 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08656821 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
    Type
    a
  2. Auer, S.: Towards an Open Research Knowledge Graph : vor einer Revolutionierung des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens (2018) 0.02 
    0.024608051 = product of:
  0.036912076 = sum of:
    0.0046456386 = weight(_text_:a in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046456386 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
    0.032266438 = product of:
      0.064532876 = sum of:
        0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064532876 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch eine weitere TIB-Veröffentlichung unter: (https://www.tib.eu/de/service/aktuelles/detail/tib-veroeffentlicht-positionspapier-zu-open-research-knowledge-graph/).
    Type
    a
  3. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.02 
    0.019862993 = product of:
  0.029794488 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
    0.024485188 = product of:
      0.048970375 = sum of:
        0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048970375 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
    Type
    a
  4. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.02 
    0.017380118 = product of:
  0.026070178 = sum of:
    0.0046456386 = weight(_text_:a in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046456386 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.02142454 = product of:
      0.04284908 = sum of:
        0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04284908 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Type
    a
  5. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.02 
    0.016249297 = product of:
  0.024373945 = sum of:
    0.00593598 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00593598 = score(doc=250,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
    Footnote
    Den Aufsatz begleitet ein interaktives Datensupplement, mit dem sich die OA-Anteile auf Ebene der Einrichtung vergleichen lassen. https://subugoe.github.io/oauni/articles/supplement.html. Die Arbeit entstand in Zusammenarbeit der BMBF-Projekte OAUNI und OASE der Förderlinie "Quantitative Wissenschaftsforschung". https://www.wihoforschung.de/de/quantitative-wissenschaftsforschung-1573.php.
    Type
    a
  6. Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017) 0.02 
    0.015016008 = product of:
  0.022524012 = sum of:
    0.010281418 = weight(_text_:a in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010281418 = score(doc=3608,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.012242594 = product of:
      0.024485188 = sum of:
        0.024485188 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024485188 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Type
    a
  7. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.01 
    0.014897244 = product of:
  0.022345865 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
    Type
    a
  8. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.01 
    0.01241437 = product of:
  0.018621555 = sum of:
    0.0033183133 = weight(_text_:a in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033183133 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4281)
    0.015303242 = product of:
      0.030606484 = sum of:
        0.030606484 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030606484 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
    Type
    a
  9. Schönfelder, N.: Mittelbedarf für Open Access an ausgewählten deutschen Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen : Transformationsrechnung (2019) 0.01 
    0.0076824855 = product of:
  0.023047457 = sum of:
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    Vgl.: 10.4119/unibi/2937971 (OA2020-DE Transformationsrechnung Finaler Bericht.pdf).
  10. Academic publishing : No peeking (2014) 0.00 
    0.0043799505 = product of:
  0.013139851 = sum of:
    0.013139851 = weight(_text_:a in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013139851 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers
    Type
    a
  11. Fallaw, C.; Dunham, E.; Wickes, E.; Strong, D.; Stein, A.; Zhang, Q.; Rimkus, K.; ill Ingram, B.; Imker, H.J.: Overly honest data repository development (2016) 0.00 
    0.003793148 = product of:
  0.011379444 = sum of:
    0.011379444 = weight(_text_:a in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011379444 = score(doc=3371,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.
    Type
    a
  12. Zhang, A.: Multimedia file formats on the Internet : a beginner's guide for PC users (1995) 0.00 
    0.003754243 = product of:
  0.011262729 = sum of:
    0.011262729 = weight(_text_:a in 3212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011262729 = score(doc=3212,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3212, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3212)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  13. Brand, A.: CrossRef turns one (2001) 0.00 
    0.0031828145 = product of:
  0.009548443 = sum of:
    0.009548443 = weight(_text_:a in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009548443 = score(doc=1222,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18328933 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.
    Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.
    Type
    a
  14. Erkal, E.: Allegations linking Sci-Hub with Russian intelligence (2019) 0.00 
    0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 4625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=4625,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4625, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4625)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Washington Post reports that the US Justice Department has launched a criminal and intelligence investigation into Alexandra Elbakyan, founder of Sci-Hub
    Type
    a
  15. Jochum, U.: Donald Trump und der bibliothekarisch-bürokratische Allianzkomplex : Geschrieben von Uwe Jochum am 19.2.2017, (2017) 0.00 
    0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 3446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=3446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3446)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  16. Publish and don't be damned : some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so (2018) 0.00 
    0.00296799 = product of:
  0.00890397 = sum of:
    0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00890397 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "Whether to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed-a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as "peer reviewed" has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny."
  17. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.00 
    0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=3711,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google - and it was created by one of Britain's most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. "Even scientists who are fighting for reform are often not aware of the roots of the system: how, in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society."
    Type
    a
  18. Graf, K.: Sci Hub, Fernleihe und Open Access (2016) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2325)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  19. Jochum, U.: Digitale Wissenschaftskontrolle (2016) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 3257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=3257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3257)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  20. Herb, U.: Rettet der Plan S den Open Access? (2018) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=4323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4323)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 38
  • e 16

Types

  • a 49
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes