Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014242312 = product of:
  0.056969248 = sum of:
    0.056969248 = weight(_text_:communication in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056969248 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.28623766 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi-layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.

0.011868593 = product of:
  0.047474373 = sum of:
    0.047474373 = weight(_text_:communication in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047474373 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.009494875 = product of:
  0.0379795 = sum of:
    0.0379795 = weight(_text_:communication in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0379795 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19902779 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046093877 = queryNorm
        0.1908251 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0054644486 = product of:
  0.021857794 = sum of:
    0.021857794 = product of:
      0.04371559 = sum of:
        0.04371559 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04371559 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16141291 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046093877 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05