Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030602714 = product of:
  0.061205428 = sum of:
    0.061205428 = product of:
      0.122410856 = sum of:
        0.122410856 = weight(_text_:2013 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122410856 = score(doc=751,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.22795638 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04449486 = queryNorm
            0.53699243 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1045-1054

Year

2013

0.028397515 = product of:
  0.05679503 = sum of:
    0.05679503 = sum of:
      0.038709715 = weight(_text_:2013 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038709715 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22795638 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04449486 = queryNorm
          0.16981193 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.018085318 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018085318 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15581343 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04449486 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.016129047 = product of:
  0.032258093 = sum of:
    0.032258093 = product of:
      0.06451619 = sum of:
        0.06451619 = weight(_text_:2013 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06451619 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22795638 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04449486 = queryNorm
            0.28301987 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.123207 = idf(docFreq=715, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.

0.012788252 = product of:
  0.025576504 = sum of:
    0.025576504 = product of:
      0.051153008 = sum of:
        0.051153008 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051153008 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15581343 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04449486 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35