Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06977999 = product of:
  0.13955998 = sum of:
    0.08007906 = weight(_text_:communication in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08007906 = score(doc=3548,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.41314846 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
    0.05948093 = product of:
      0.11896186 = sum of:
        0.11896186 = weight(_text_:blogs in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11896186 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.38262224 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.023116833 = product of:
  0.09246733 = sum of:
    0.09246733 = weight(_text_:communication in 969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09246733 = score(doc=969,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.47706276 = fieldWeight in 969, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=969)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper deals with information needs, seeking, searching, and uses within scholarly communities by introducing theory from the field of science and technology studies. In particular it contributes to the domain-analytic approach in information science by showing that Whitley's theory of 'mutual dependence' and 'task uncertainty' can be used as an explanatory framework in understanding similarity and difference in information practices across intellectual fields. Based on qualitative case studies of three specialist scholarly communities across the physical sciences, applied sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities, this paper extends Whitley's theory into the realm of information communication technologies. The paper adopts a holistic approach to information practices by recognising the interrelationship between the traditions of informal and formal scientific communication and how it shapes digital outcomes across intellectual fields. The findings show that communities inhabiting fields with a high degree of 'mutual dependence' coupled with a low degree of 'task uncertainty' are adept at coordinating and controlling channels of communication and will readily co-produce field-based digital information resources, whereas communities that inhabit fields characterised by the opposite cultural configuration, a low degree of 'mutual dependence' coupled with a high degree of 'task uncertainty', are less successful in commanding control over channels of communication and are less concerned with co-producing field-based digital resources and integrating them into their epistemic and social structures. These findings have implications for the culturally sensitive development and provision of academic digital resources such as digital libraries and web-based subject portals.

0.020818327 = product of:
  0.08327331 = sum of:
    0.08327331 = product of:
      0.16654661 = sum of:
        0.16654661 = weight(_text_:blogs in 1969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16654661 = score(doc=1969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31091204 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04488925 = queryNorm
            0.5356712 = fieldWeight in 1969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

New mass publishing genres, such as blogs and personal home pages provide a rich source of social data that is yet to be fully exploited by the social sciences and humanities. Information-centered research (ICR) not only provides a genuinely new and useful information science research model for this type of data, but can also contribute to the emerging e-research infrastructure. Nevertheless, ICR should not be conducted on a purely abstract level, but should relate to potentially relevant problems.

0.016346069 = product of:
  0.065384276 = sum of:
    0.065384276 = weight(_text_:communication in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065384276 = score(doc=4627,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.3373343 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

0.011558416 = product of:
  0.046233665 = sum of:
    0.046233665 = weight(_text_:communication in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046233665 = score(doc=3154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19382635 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.317879 = idf(docFreq=1601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04488925 = queryNorm
        0.23853138 = fieldWeight in 3154, 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=3154)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the cultural characteristics of three open access (OA)-friendly disciplines (physics, economics, and clinical medicine) and the ways in which those characteristics influence perceptions, motivations, and behaviors toward green OA. The empirical data are taken from two online surveys of European authors. Taking a domain analytic approach, the analysis draws on Becher and Trowler's (2001) and Whitley's (2000) theories to gain a deeper understanding of why OA repositories (OAR) play a particularly important role in the chosen disciplines. The surveys provided a unique opportunity to compare perceptions, motivations, and behaviors of researchers at the discipline level with the parent metadiscipline. It should be noted that participants were not drawn from a stratified sample of all the different subdisciplines that constitute each discipline, and therefore the generalizability of the findings to the discipline may be limited. The differential role of informal and formal communication in each of the three disciplines has shaped green OA practices. For physicists and economists, preprints are an essential feature of their respective OAR landscapes, whereas for clinical medics final published articles have a central role. In comparing the disciplines with their parent metadisciplines there were some notable similarities/differences, which have methodological implications for studying research cultures.