Search (429 results, page 1 of 22)

0.118389025 = product of:
  0.14798628 = sum of:
    0.10844573 = weight(_text_:section in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10844573 = score(doc=621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.4122572 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

This article statistically analyzes how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to that of articles in the same journal that were not deposited in the archive. Its principal aim is to further illustrate and roughly estimate the effect of two factors, early view and quality bias, on differences in citation impact between these two sets of papers, using citation data from Thomson Scientific's Web of Science. It presents estimates for a number of journals in the field of condensed matter physics. To discriminate between an open access effect and an early view effect, longitudinal citation data were analyzed covering a time period as long as 7 years. Quality bias was measured by calculating ArXiv citation impact differentials at the level of individual authors publishing in a journal, taking into account coauthorship. The analysis provided evidence of a strong quality bias and early view effect. Correcting for these effects, there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general open access advantage of papers deposited in ArXiv. The study does provide evidence that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that ArXiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2047-2054

0.07680671 = product of:
  0.12801118 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.093118176 = sum of:
      0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03908618 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054031998 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3686, 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=3686)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The British Library's Initiatives for Access programme (1993-) aims to identify the impact and value of digital and networking technologies on the Library's collections and services. Describes the projects: the Electronic Beowulf, digitisation of ageing microfilm, digital photographic images, and use of the Excalibur retrieval software. Examines the ways in which the issues of preparation, scanning, and storage have been tackled, and problems raised by use of recognition technologies and compression

Date

22. 5.1999 19:00:52

Source

Information management and technology. 31(1998) no.2, S.77-81

0.07015869 = product of:
  0.11693114 = sum of:
    0.018650195 = weight(_text_:on in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018650195 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374

0.06972754 = product of:
  0.11621256 = sum of:
    0.031971764 = weight(_text_:on in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031971764 = score(doc=2757,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.0144021725 = weight(_text_:information in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0144021725 = score(doc=2757,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.06983863 = sum of:
      0.029314637 = weight(_text_:technology in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029314637 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.728-739

0.05843022 = product of:
  0.0973837 = sum of:
    0.07668271 = weight(_text_:section in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07668271 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29150987 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=2096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In May 1999, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Harold Varmus proposed an electronic repository for biomedical research literature server called "E-biomed." E-biomed reflected the visions of scholarly electronic publishing advocates: It would be fully searchable, be free to readers, and contain full-text versions of both preprint and postpublication biomedical research articles. However, within 4 months, the E-biomed proposal was radically transformed: The preprint section was eliminated, delays were instituted between article publication and posting to the archive, and the narre was changed to "PubMed Central." This case study examines the remarkable transformation of the E-biomed proposal to PubMed Central by analyzing comments about the proposal that were posted to an online E-biomed forum created by the NIH, and discussions that took place in other face-to-face forums where E-biomed deliberations took place. We find that the transformation of the E-biomed proposal into PubMed Central was the result of highly visible and highly influential position statements made by scientific societies against the proposal. The literature about scholarly electronic publishing usually emphasizes a binary conflict between (trade) publishers and scholars/scientists. We conclude that: (1) scientific societies and the individual scientists they represent do not always have identical interests in regard to scientific e-publishing; (2) stakeholder politics and personal interests reign supreme in e-publishing debates, even in a supposedly status-free online forum; and (3) multiple communication forums must be considered in examinations of e-publishing deliberations.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.127-148

0.051314984 = product of:
  0.08552497 = sum of:
    0.018839544 = weight(_text_:on in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018839544 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.0084865615 = weight(_text_:information in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0084865615 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.05819886 = sum of:
      0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024428863 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03377 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03377 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.046507392 = product of:
  0.07751232 = sum of:
    0.036917817 = weight(_text_:on in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036917817 = score(doc=3035,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.027015999 = product of:
      0.054031998 = sum of:
        0.054031998 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054031998 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal

Date

22. 2.1999 16:56:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.507-516

0.045512598 = product of:
  0.1137815 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=582,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
    0.08147841 = sum of:
      0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03420041 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
      0.047278 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047278 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 582, 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=582)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Discusses the publishing of books online on the Internet, in the USA. The issues is treated mainly in relation to trade publishers. Outlines various ways in which such publishers have so far used the Internet, for example in the publishing of the full text of works of fiction, for publishing catalogues, and for presenting authors to the public via bulletin boards or electronic conferences. Notes a number or problems which arise: copyright, payment for accessing items, advertising restrictions, and the ease with which the published unit can be tampered with when available on the Internet. Also discusses collaboration and conflicts between publishers and the technology industry

Source

Publishers weekly. 240(1993) no.47, 22 Nov., S.33-35,38

0.04509913 = product of:
  0.112747826 = sum of:
    0.092019245 = weight(_text_:section in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092019245 = score(doc=4333,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26305357 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.34981182 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.276892 = idf(docFreq=613, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
    0.02072858 = product of:
      0.04145716 = sum of:
        0.04145716 = weight(_text_:technology in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04145716 = score(doc=4333,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Publish and don't be damned".

Source

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so

0.042815924 = product of:
  0.07135987 = sum of:
    0.03014327 = weight(_text_:on in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03014327 = score(doc=1413,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 1413, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1413)
    0.013578499 = weight(_text_:information in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013578499 = score(doc=1413,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1413, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1413)
    0.027638106 = product of:
      0.05527621 = sum of:
        0.05527621 = weight(_text_:technology in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05527621 = score(doc=1413,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.3722984 = fieldWeight in 1413, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Communication of mathematical research and scholarship is undergoing profound change as new technology creates new ways to disseminate and access the literature. More than technology is changing, however; the culture and practices of those who create, disseminate, and archive the mathematical literature are changing as well. For the sake of present and future mathematicians, we should shape those changes to make them suit the needs of the discipline.

0.042756855 = product of:
  0.07126142 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=529,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
    0.014699157 = weight(_text_:information in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014699157 = score(doc=529,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
    0.029919127 = product of:
      0.059838254 = sum of:
        0.059838254 = weight(_text_:technology in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059838254 = score(doc=529,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.40302482 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Increasingly, e-books are becoming alternatives to print books in academic libraries, thus providing opportunities to assess how well the use of e-books meets the requirements of academics. This study uses the task-technology fit (TTF) model to explore the interrelationships of e-books, the affordances offered by smart readers, the information needs of academics, and the "fit" of technology to tasks as well as performance. We propose that the adoption of e-books will be dependent on how academics perceive the fit of this new medium to the tasks they undertake as well as what added-value functionality is delivered by the information technology that delivers the content. The study used content analysis and an online survey, administered to the faculty in Medicine, Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales, to identify the attributes of a TTF construct of e-books in academic settings. Using exploratory factor analysis, preliminary findings confirmed annotation, navigation, and output as the core dimensions of the TTF construct. The results of confirmatory factor analysis using partial least squares path modeling supported the overall TTF model in reflecting significant positive impact of task, technology, and individual characteristics on TTF for e-books in academic settings; it also confirmed significant positive impact of TTF on individuals' performance and use, and impact of using e-books on individual performance. Our research makes two contributions: the development of an e-book TTF construct and the testing of that construct in a model validating the efficacy of the TTF framework in measuring perceived fit of e-books to academic tasks.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.48-64

0.041901197 = product of:
  0.10475299 = sum of:
    0.022771835 = weight(_text_:information in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022771835 = score(doc=1871,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.08198115 = sum of:
      0.04145716 = weight(_text_:technology in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04145716 = score(doc=1871,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.2792238 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.040523995 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040523995 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17456654 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049850095 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, 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=1871)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Chemical information sciences-ranging from subjectspecific bibliometrics to sophisticated theoretical systems for modeling structures and reactions-have historically led in developing new technologies. Hundreds of papers are published or presented at conferences annually in this discipline. One of the more significant conferences at which important research has historically been presented is the Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information, an event jointly sponsored by the American Chemical Society, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and the Special Libraries Association and held every four years. Eight years ago, the theme of this conference was the chemist's workstation; papers were presented an developments enabling chemists to access and process a variety of different types of chemical information from their desktop or laboratory bench. Several of these papers were subsequently published as a Perspectives issue.

Date

19.10.2003 17:17:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1136-1137

0.041333556 = product of:
  0.06888926 = sum of:
    0.03014327 = weight(_text_:on in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03014327 = score(doc=1679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
    0.019202897 = weight(_text_:information in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019202897 = score(doc=1679,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=1679,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Presents briefly the impact of information technology on information management. Discuses the publication of electronic databases on CD-ROM and the Internet by considering factors such as media of choice, cost factors, basic infrastructure, steps in publishing and their scenario in India, with products. Also, lists the differences between the two technologies. Concludes that India could use these media for publishing its databases not only for its own use but also to earn foreign exchange.

0.040827077 = product of:
  0.068045124 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
    0.016973123 = weight(_text_:information in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016973123 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
    0.024428863 = product of:
      0.048857726 = sum of:
        0.048857726 = weight(_text_:technology in 801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048857726 = score(doc=801,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.32906836 = fieldWeight in 801, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In addition to already exisiting electronic periodicals, Springer-Verlag's LINK information service offers electronic versions of most printed periodicals and an increasing number of books from the Springer Group of companies on the WWW

Source

Advanced technology libraries. 26(1997) no.6, S.4-5

0.04080876 = product of:
  0.0680146 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
    0.027156997 = weight(_text_:information in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027156997 = score(doc=4778,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 4778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=4778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 4778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Although Twinfo BV, Netherlands, is not a publisher, it has for 20 years been occupied with new development in electronic publishing and gained expertise in the field of online information retrieval (terminal emulation and client server), CD-ROMs, interactive television and other interactive media forms via government bodies that in practice are often acting as publishers wanting to open up new markets. Focuses on the concept of multimedia information kiosks

0.0397235 = product of:
  0.06620583 = sum of:
    0.03230309 = weight(_text_:on in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230309 = score(doc=5915,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.016802534 = weight(_text_:information in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802534 = score(doc=5915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.017100206 = product of:
      0.03420041 = sum of:
        0.03420041 = weight(_text_:technology in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03420041 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Academic libraries today are faced with the prospect of numerous alternatives to traditional printed indexes to the primary literature. Not only are many indexes made available by publishers on CD-ROM products, but most of these products can be acquired on computer tape for local mounting. This happy situation is further augmented by the availability of these products through mediated search services such as Dialog and end user services such as OCLC FirstSearch. Choosing the best alternative becomes a matter of estimating demand and comparing costs for each type of access. These estimates are complicated by lack of information on how often patrons will use a given alternative and by lack of qualitative data. Results of comparisons made at Trinity and Clemson Universities provide some revealing benchmarks that can help to place a quantitative framework around the decision process

Source

Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.2, S.173-180

0.03862575 = product of:
  0.06437625 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 5939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=5939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5939)
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 5939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=5939,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 5939, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5939)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 5939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=5939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 5939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Proposes a combination of markup (e.g. SGML), natural language processing and artificial intelligence techniques for document description and information retrieval of primary scientific writings. By using markup to code parts of the documents while producing them, natural language techniques to understand them and rules and plans to pick up the most important parts of the documents, then tailored information packages could be created at different levels

Source

Technology and competence. Proc. of the 8th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation, Helsingborg, 19-21 May 1992. Ed.: K. Adler et al

0.03862575 = product of:
  0.06437625 = sum of:
    0.02131451 = weight(_text_:on in 8729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02131451 = score(doc=8729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 8729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8729)
    0.023518652 = weight(_text_:information in 8729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023518652 = score(doc=8729,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 8729, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8729)
    0.01954309 = product of:
      0.03908618 = sum of:
        0.03908618 = weight(_text_:technology in 8729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03908618 = score(doc=8729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 8729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Over the past decade, new data formats and new tools have emerged that hold the promise of greatly enhancing the resources available to scholars. The UMLib Text initiative is one of several evolving projects designed to provide expanded and/or enhanced access to electronic information resources for the University of Michigan community. Following a review of the history of this textual analysis project, its current status and continuing development are discussed in the context of the rapidly emerging electronic information environment on campus

Source

Information technology and libraries. 13(1994) no.1, S.20-24

0.037463933 = product of:
  0.06243989 = sum of:
    0.02637536 = weight(_text_:on in 8774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02637536 = score(doc=8774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 8774, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8774)
    0.011881187 = weight(_text_:information in 8774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011881187 = score(doc=8774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 8774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8774)
    0.024183342 = product of:
      0.048366684 = sum of:
        0.048366684 = weight(_text_:technology in 8774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048366684 = score(doc=8774,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.32576108 = fieldWeight in 8774, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This paper suggests a standard format for creating hypermedia software. Teachers and students of literature have taken up the use of hypermedia technology enthusiastically and so we are rapidly arriving at a situation where a mushrooming of software for language and literature teaching will be faced. We will arrive much sooner at a situation where searching for an appropriate software would be as difficult as finding an appropriate article today. Technology is expected to optimise information to maximise knowledge: the confusion created by Gutenberg's invention is because duplication cannot be avoided. The suggested format is based on the major pillars of literary criticism - author centred, text centred and reader centred - and develops from the word to the work level. The findings have been demonstrated in the form of Technocriticism, a hypermedia program created on HyperCard

0.035787188 = product of:
  0.05964531 = sum of:
    0.026643137 = weight(_text_:on in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026643137 = score(doc=1638,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109641045 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
    0.020787746 = weight(_text_:information in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020787746 = score(doc=1638,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08751074 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049850095 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
    0.012214432 = product of:
      0.024428863 = sum of:
        0.024428863 = weight(_text_:technology in 1638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024428863 = score(doc=1638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14847288 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049850095 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 1638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.297-308