Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06989485 = sum of:
  0.036171544 = product of:
    0.14468618 = sum of:
      0.14468618 = weight(_text_:authors in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14468618 = score(doc=5317,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.

0.048490275 = sum of:
  0.0147669725 = product of:
    0.05906789 = sum of:
      0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05906789 = score(doc=3154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3154, 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=3154)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.033723302 = product of:
    0.067446604 = sum of:
      0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.067446604 = score(doc=3154,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051448494 = queryNorm
          0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 3154, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3154)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the cultural characteristics of three open access (OA)-friendly disciplines (physics, economics, and clinical medicine) and the ways in which those characteristics influence perceptions, motivations, and behaviors toward green OA. The empirical data are taken from two online surveys of European authors. Taking a domain analytic approach, the analysis draws on Becher and Trowler's (2001) and Whitley's (2000) theories to gain a deeper understanding of why OA repositories (OAR) play a particularly important role in the chosen disciplines. The surveys provided a unique opportunity to compare perceptions, motivations, and behaviors of researchers at the discipline level with the parent metadiscipline. It should be noted that participants were not drawn from a stratified sample of all the different subdisciplines that constitute each discipline, and therefore the generalizability of the findings to the discipline may be limited. The differential role of informal and formal communication in each of the three disciplines has shaped green OA practices. For physicists and economists, preprints are an essential feature of their respective OAR landscapes, whereas for clinical medics final published articles have a central role. In comparing the disciplines with their parent metadisciplines there were some notable similarities/differences, which have methodological implications for studying research cultures.

0.016861651 = product of:
  0.033723302 = sum of:
    0.033723302 = product of:
      0.067446604 = sum of:
        0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067446604 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.016861651 = product of:
  0.033723302 = sum of:
    0.033723302 = product of:
      0.067446604 = sum of:
        0.067446604 = weight(_text_:v in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067446604 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25062758 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.26911086 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.871427 = idf(docFreq=920, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0073834863 = product of:
  0.0147669725 = sum of:
    0.0147669725 = product of:
      0.05906789 = sum of:
        0.05906789 = weight(_text_:authors in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05906789 = score(doc=3574,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23454411 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051448494 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3574, 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=3574)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.