Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.049088717 = sum of:
  0.022516798 = product of:
    0.09006719 = sum of:
      0.09006719 = weight(_text_:authors in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09006719 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049030673 = queryNorm
          0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026571918 = product of:
    0.053143837 = sum of:
      0.053143837 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053143837 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17169707 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049030673 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.036816537 = sum of:
  0.016887598 = product of:
    0.06755039 = sum of:
      0.06755039 = weight(_text_:authors in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06755039 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049030673 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019928938 = product of:
    0.039857876 = sum of:
      0.039857876 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039857876 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17169707 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049030673 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.013285959 = product of:
  0.026571918 = sum of:
    0.026571918 = product of:
      0.053143837 = sum of:
        0.053143837 = weight(_text_:22 in 7670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053143837 = score(doc=7670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17169707 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7670, 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=7670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.6, S.407-421

0.011941336 = product of:
  0.023882672 = sum of:
    0.023882672 = product of:
      0.09553069 = sum of:
        0.09553069 = weight(_text_:authors in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09553069 = score(doc=6896,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 6896, 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=6896)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures

0.011258399 = product of:
  0.022516798 = sum of:
    0.022516798 = product of:
      0.09006719 = sum of:
        0.09006719 = weight(_text_:authors in 8289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09006719 = score(doc=8289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 8289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8289)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Queries the interpretations of the 'virtual library' made by authors and others. It is erroneous to relate the term to the possibilities of delivering the full text plus images of articles and books to the client's terminal, irrespective of where the client is located. Offers 3 definitions of 'vitual reality' taken from the literature. The concept is in its infacy. it will be many years before it becomes applied to libraries. The 'electronic library', 'the library without walls' and 'the networked library' are all acceptable terms

0.009964469 = product of:
  0.019928938 = sum of:
    0.019928938 = product of:
      0.039857876 = sum of:
        0.039857876 = weight(_text_:22 in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039857876 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17169707 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 42, 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=42)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information studies. 3(1997) no.1, S.5-22

0.008443799 = product of:
  0.016887598 = sum of:
    0.016887598 = product of:
      0.06755039 = sum of:
        0.06755039 = weight(_text_:authors in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06755039 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4546, 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=4546)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The literature of the evaluation of Internet search engines is reviewed. Although there have been many studies, there has been little consistency in the way such studies have been carried out. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that recall is virtually impossible to calculate in the fast changing Internet environment, and therefore the traditional Cranfield type of evaluation is not usually possible. A variety of alternative evaluation methods has been suggested to overcome this difficulty. The authors recommend that a standardised set of tools is developed for the evaluation of web search engines so that, in future, comparisons can be made between search engines more effectively, and that variations in performance of any given search engine over time can be tracked. The paper itself does not provide such a standard set of tools, but it investigates the issues and makes preliminary recommendations of the types of tools needed

0.008303724 = product of:
  0.016607448 = sum of:
    0.016607448 = product of:
      0.033214897 = sum of:
        0.033214897 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033214897 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17169707 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

0.00796089 = product of:
  0.01592178 = sum of:
    0.01592178 = product of:
      0.06368712 = sum of:
        0.06368712 = weight(_text_:authors in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06368712 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.28492588 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.

0.0070364997 = product of:
  0.014072999 = sum of:
    0.014072999 = product of:
      0.056291997 = sum of:
        0.056291997 = weight(_text_:authors in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056291997 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22352172 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049030673 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 839, 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=839)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.