Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

0.036727823 = product of:
  0.07345565 = sum of:
    0.05753411 = weight(_text_:subject in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05753411 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.03144897 = product of:
  0.06289794 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.027831456 = product of:
  0.05566291 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
    0.015802111 = product of:
      0.031604223 = sum of:
        0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031604223 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Presents a simple notation for describing the internal structure of a document and contrasts it with other more conventional notations in particular those related to subject classification systems, and those for bibliographic purposes, codes such as those of SGML. Such a notation should assist the science of human messaging through: permitting hypotheses to be more readily expressed and/or tested concerning document structure, and facilitating the formation of taxonomies of documents based on their structures. Such a notation should also be of practical value in contributing to document specification, building and testing, and possibly also contribute to new generations of information retrieval systems which link retrieval against record databases to the search systems internal to specific documents. The notation is at present limited to linear documents, but extensions to it to accomodate documents in non linear form (e.g. hypertext documents) and/or existing in physically distributed form, could usefully be constructed. Provides examples of the application of the notation

0.024569437 = product of:
  0.049138874 = sum of:
    0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033217333 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.015921539 = product of:
      0.031843077 = sum of:
        0.031843077 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031843077 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.018554304 = product of:
  0.037108608 = sum of:
    0.026573867 = weight(_text_:subject in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026573867 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.01053474 = product of:
      0.02106948 = sum of:
        0.02106948 = weight(_text_:classification in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02106948 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.017453978 = product of:
  0.06981591 = sum of:
    0.06981591 = sum of:
      0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031604223 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
      0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03821169 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1385, 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=1385)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This volume is the first book coherently summarizing the current issues in digital libraries research, design and management. It presents, in a homogeneous way, thoroughly revised versions of 15 papers accepted for the First International Workshop on Digital Libraries, DL '94, held at Rutgers University in May 1994; in addition there are two introductory chapters provided by the volume editors, as well as a comprehensive bibliography listing 262 entries. Besides introductory aspects, the topics addressed are administration and management, information retrieval and hypertext, classification and indexing, and prototypes and applications. The volume is intended for researchers and design professionals in the field, as well as for experts from libraries administration and scientific publishing.

Date

22. 1.1996 18:26:45

0.015921539 = product of:
  0.063686155 = sum of:
    0.063686155 = product of:
      0.12737231 = sum of:
        0.12737231 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12737231 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.013509873 = product of:
  0.054039493 = sum of:
    0.054039493 = product of:
      0.10807899 = sum of:
        0.10807899 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10807899 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22

0.013286933 = product of:
  0.053147733 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the eidtorial thinking and planning behind the preparation of the New Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) for publication in print and electronic form. Focuses on issues arising from the attempt to capture 'clean' information from literary prose. Details the characters of the DNB, access through indexes, core data, clean data, indexing the subject, indexing the text, and editorial tracking

0.01273723 = product of:
  0.05094892 = sum of:
    0.05094892 = product of:
      0.10189784 = sum of:
        0.10189784 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10189784 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.01273723 = product of:
  0.05094892 = sum of:
    0.05094892 = product of:
      0.10189784 = sum of:
        0.10189784 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10189784 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.01273723 = product of:
  0.05094892 = sum of:
    0.05094892 = product of:
      0.10189784 = sum of:
        0.10189784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10189784 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.011744101 = product of:
  0.046976402 = sum of:
    0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046976402 = score(doc=1226,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.011258227 = product of:
  0.045032907 = sum of:
    0.045032907 = product of:
      0.090065815 = sum of:
        0.090065815 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090065815 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

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

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Börsenblatt. Nr.50 vom 24.6.1994, S.19-22

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 6664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=6664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.181-247

0.011145077 = product of:
  0.044580307 = sum of:
    0.044580307 = product of:
      0.08916061 = sum of:
        0.08916061 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08916061 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 2.1996 22:34:46

0.0099652 = product of:
  0.0398608 = sum of:
    0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0398608 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Design of peer-review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer-review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer-review processes, a variety of new peer-review processes have emerged that manage the trade-offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer-review process within that framework.

0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.1, S.35-38

0.009552922 = product of:
  0.03821169 = sum of:
    0.03821169 = product of:
      0.07642338 = sum of:
        0.07642338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07642338 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22