Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi (2016) 0.01 
    0.0149040185 = product of:
  0.044712055 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=3226,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
    0.03473446 = product of:
      0.06946892 = sum of:
        0.06946892 = weight(_text_:ausbildung in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06946892 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23429902 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.29649687 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.
    Theme
    Ausbildung
  2. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.009390892 = product of:
  0.028172677 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=2646,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  3. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.01 
    0.0091357 = product of:
  0.027407099 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=4635,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
  4. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.0091357 = product of:
  0.027407099 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=2593,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Object
    Research Papers in Economics
  5. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.01 
    0.00899133 = product of:
  0.026973989 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=4631,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
    Content
    Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  6. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.01 
    0.008982609 = product of:
  0.026947826 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
  7. 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) 0.01 
    0.007512714 = product of:
  0.02253814 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=3608,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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.
  8. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.01 
    0.007504981 = product of:
  0.022514943 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=4410,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.014786332 = product of:
      0.029572664 = sum of:
        0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029572664 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.0073085604 = product of:
  0.02192568 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=4051,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.011829065 = product of:
      0.02365813 = sum of:
        0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02365813 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  10. Kliegl, R.: ¬A vision of scientific communication (2016) 0.00 
    0.004738532 = product of:
  0.02843119 = sum of:
    0.02843119 = weight(_text_:und in 3249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02843119 = score(doc=3249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3249)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Wissenschaftliches Publizieren: zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, Ökonomisierung und medialer Beobachtung. Hrsg.: Peter Weingart u. Niels Taubert
  11. Rodrigues, R.S.; Abadal, E.: Scientific journals in Brazil and Spain : alternative publishing models (2014) 0.00 
    0.0025241538 = product of:
  0.015144923 = sum of:
    0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015144923 = score(doc=1504,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1504, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1504)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This paper describes high-quality journals in Brazil and Spain, with an emphasis on the distribution models used. It presents the general characteristics (age, type of publisher, and theme) and analyzes the distribution model by studying the type of format (print or digital), the type of access (open access or subscription), and the technology platform used. The 549 journals analyzed (249 in Brazil and 300 in Spain) are included in the 2011 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Data on each journal were collected directly from their websites between March and October 2012. Brazil has a fully open access distribution model (97%) in which few journals require payment by authors thanks to cultural, financial, operational, and technological support provided by public agencies. In Spain, open access journals account for 55% of the total and have also received support from public agencies, although to a lesser extent. These results show that there are systems support of open access in scientific journals other than the "author pays" model advocated by the Finch report for the United Kingdom.
  12. García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: ¬The principal-agent problem in peer review : an interactionist perspective on everyday use of biomedical information (2015) 0.00 
    0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=1638,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    In economics, the principal-agent problem is the difficulty in motivating one party (the agent), to act in the best interests of another (the principal) rather than in his own interests. We consider the example of a journal editor (the principal) wondering whether his or her reviewer (the agent) is recommending rejection of a manuscript because it does not have enough quality to be published or because the reviewer dislikes effort and he/she must work to acquire in-depth knowledge of the content of the manuscript. The reviewer's effort provides him or her with superior information about a manuscript's quality. If this information is not correctly communicated, the reviewer has more information when compared with the journal editor. This inherently leads to an encouragement of moral hazard, where the editor will not know whether the reviewer has done his or her job in accordance to the editor's interest. Prescriptions need to be given as to how the journal editor should control the reviewers to curb self-interest. Besides the associate editors monitoring the peer-review process, incentives can be employed to limit moral hazard on the part of the reviewer. Drawing on agency theory, we examine the incentives motivating the reviewers to expend effort to generate information about the quality of submissions. This model predicts that for reviewers early in their careers, promotion-based incentives may mean there is no need for within-job incentives, but also that within-job rewards for a referee's performance should depend on individual differences in ability and promotion opportunities.
  13. Abad-García, M.-F.; González-Teruel, A.; González-Llinares, J.: Effectiveness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar at finding spanish articles in repositories (2018) 0.00 
    0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=4185,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.
  14. Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012) 0.00 
    0.0021859813 = product of:
  0.013115887 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=2299,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.
  15. Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021859813 = product of:
  0.013115887 = sum of:
    0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013115887 = score(doc=2337,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
  16. Shen, W.; Stempfhuber, M.: Embedding discussion in online publications (2013) 0.00 
    0.002145118 = product of:
  0.0128707085 = sum of:
    0.0128707085 = weight(_text_:in in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128707085 = score(doc=940,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2167489 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Grey Literature and Open Access publications have the potential to become the basis of new types of scientific publications, in which scientific discourse and collaboration can play a central role in the dissemination of knowledge, due to their machine-readable format and electronic availability. With advances in cyber science and e-(Social) Science, an increasing number of scientific publications are required to be shared with different group members or even within communities in virtual reading environments. However, the most often used format for publishing articles on the web is still the Adobe PDF format, which limits the extent to which readers of an article can interact with online content and within their browser environment. This not only separates the formal communication - the article itself - from the informal communication about a publication - the discussion about the article - but also fails to link the different threads of communications which might appear in parallel at different locations in the scientific community as a whole. Analysis of around 30 web sites where different ways for presenting formal and informal communications were conducted shows in the identification of several prototypes of media combinations which were then evaluated against human factor aspects (distance between related information, arrangement of related information etc). Based on this evaluation we concluded that at the time of analysis, no model exist for directly integrating formal and informal communication to a single media, allowing readers of publications to directly discuss within the publication, e.g. to extend the publication with their input directly at the paragraph they wanted to comment. Therefore, a new publishing medium is necessary to fulfil the gap between the formal and informal communication, facilitating and engaging academic readers' active participating in the online scientific discourse. We have developed an online discussion service, which allows interactive features for annotation directly available at the point in the publication to which the comment refers to. Besides the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of discourse across portals and communities we approach at the same time to create a new basis for research in scientific discourse, networking and collaboration. This is supported by linking from the individual article to other publications or information items in digital libraries.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.12
  17. Wakeling, S.; Spezi, V.; Fry, J.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Willett, P.: Academic communities : the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication (2019) 0.00 
    0.0021034614 = product of:
  0.012620768 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=4627,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.
  18. Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: ¬A study of open access journals using article processing charges (2012) 0.00 
    0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=365,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Article processing charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was $906 U.S. dollars (USD) calculated over journals and $904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between $8 and $3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals.
  19. Brembs, B.: So your institute went cold turkey on publisher X : what now? (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=3562,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher. In the run-up to these negotiations, all members of the consortium were urged to not renew their individual subscriptions with the publisher and most institutions apparently followed this call. As the first Elsevier offer was rejected by DEAL and further negotiations have been postponed until 2017, the participating institutions whose individual contract runs out this year will be without continued subscription access - as long as they don't cave in and broker new individual contracts. At first, this may seem like a massive problem for all students and faculty at these institutions. However, there are now so many alternative access strategies, that the well-informed scholar may not even notice much of a difference. Here are ten different options, in no particular order.
  20. Publish and don't be damned : some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so (2018) 0.00 
    0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    One estimate puts the number of papers in questionable journals at 400,000.
    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."
    Footnote
    This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Publish and don't be damned".

Authors

Types

  • a 54
  • el 4
  • More… Less…

Themes