Search (93 results, page 1 of 5)

0.02244769 = product of:
  0.06734307 = sum of:
    0.0561033 = weight(_text_:history in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0561033 = score(doc=4631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.2907489 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.011239768 = product of:
      0.022479536 = sum of:
        0.022479536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022479536 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02121283 = product of:
  0.063638486 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

0.020139962 = product of:
  0.120839775 = sum of:
    0.120839775 = weight(_text_:21st in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.120839775 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.5074419 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff

0.019835513 = product of:
  0.11901308 = sum of:
    0.11901308 = weight(_text_:history in 8744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11901308 = score(doc=8744,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.6167716 = fieldWeight in 8744, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8744)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.014025825 = product of:
  0.08415495 = sum of:
    0.08415495 = weight(_text_:history in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08415495 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.43612334 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Table of Contents 1 Economic Issues* 2 Electronic Books and Texts 2.1 Case Studies and History 2.2 General Works* 2.3 Library Issues* 3 Electronic Serials 3.1 Case Studies and History 3.2 Critiques 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 3.4 General Works* 3.5 Library Issues* 3.6 Research* 4 General Works* 5 Legal Issues 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights* 5.2 License Agreements 5.3 Other Legal Issues 6 Library Issues 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata* 6.2 Digital Libraries* 6.3 General Works* 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation* 7 New Publishing Models* 8 Publisher Issues 8.1 Digital Rights Management* 9 Repositories and E-Prints* Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author Appendix B. About the Author

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 8639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=8639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 8639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8639)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Today's electronic magazines, published by many companies are available through several different technologies and appeal to both consumers and professional researchers. Advertisers can use electronic magazines to take advantage of cross-media deals and prepare for the coming age of interactivity. A few critics point out that electronic magazines have a long way to go before they reach their potential, but by looking back to the history of magazine publishing a precedent is found that heralds a successful future for electronic publications

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 8729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=8729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 8729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8729)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=3987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Sets out the background, history and distinguishing characteristics of SGML as an electronic format for handling electronic records and for electronic publishing. Describes available SGML authoring tools and editing packages. Assesses the suitability of SGML for electronic document delivery and document distribution systems for libraries (electronic library concept) with particular reference to the Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign Digital Library project. Contrasts the willingness with which publishers have embraced SGML with the problems that still need to be overcome in its implementation

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Offers some personal reflections on journals based on 25 years' experience. All IOP (Institute of Physics) journbal have been available electronically on the WWW since Jan 96. Charts the history, current status and near future development of IOP's electronic journals programme, including some previously unpublished results of a large scale international survey of physicists

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 1708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=1708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 1708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1708)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Considers the international harmonisation of copyright law. Outlines the geo/political background. Gives a history of attempts by the European Union to control digital copyright and treaties agreed by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 1996 to deal with material in digital formats. Outlines copyright infringement, types of databases and their varying copyright protection

0.013054924 = product of:
  0.03916477 = sum of:
    0.024794389 = weight(_text_:history in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024794389 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.12849407 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.014370383 = product of:
      0.028740766 = sum of:
        0.028740766 = weight(_text_:century in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028740766 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.13834247 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

An argument for extending the circulation of knowledge with new publishing technologies considers scholarly, economic, philosophical, and practical issues. Questions about access to scholarship go back farther than recent debates over subscription prices, rights, and electronic archives suggest. The great libraries of the past - from the fabled collection at Alexandria to the early public libraries of nineteenth-century America - stood as arguments for increasing access. In The Access Principle, John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story - online open access publishing by scholarly journals - and makes a case for open access as a public good. A commitment to scholarly work, writes Willinsky, carries with it a responsibility to circulate that work as widely as possible: this is the access principle. In the digital age, that responsibility includes exploring new publishing technologies and economic models to improve access to scholarly work. Wide circulation adds value to published work; it is a significant aspect of its claim to be knowledge. The right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. Open access, argues Willinsky, can benefit both a researcher-author working the best-equipped lab at a leading research university and a teacher struggling to find resources in an impoverished high school. Willinsky describes different types of access - the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, grants open access to issues six months after initial publication, and First Monday forgoes a print edition and makes its contents immediately accessible at no cost. He discusses the contradictions of copyright law, the reading of research, and the economic viability of open access. He also considers broader themes of public access to knowledge, human rights issues, lessons from publishing history, and "epistemological vanities." The debate over open access, writes Willinsky, raises crucial questions about the place of scholarly work in a larger world - and about the future of knowledge.

0.011688187 = product of:
  0.07012912 = sum of:
    0.07012912 = weight(_text_:history in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07012912 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3634361 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

0.011570716 = product of:
  0.069424294 = sum of:
    0.069424294 = weight(_text_:history in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069424294 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The US government has been active in the establishment of national and other levels of networking to connect various kinds of persons and groups throughout the country. Briefly examines the history and present state of federal initiatives in electronic networking (particularly the National Information Infrastructure (NII)) and the NREN. Looks at current trends and issues for electronic publishing that come from this federal activity; and identifies topics of fundamental interest to, and with major implications for, national policy that arise from electronic publishing. Explores electronic publishing in the context of federal networking initiatives and considers the implications of the growth of electronic publishing for national policy

0.009917757 = product of:
  0.05950654 = sum of:
    0.05950654 = weight(_text_:history in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05950654 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 1018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1018)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Examines the history of scientific communication and the complex roles traditionally played by scientific periodicals in an attempt to understand how and when these periodicals are likely to incorporate new technologies and forms of information communication. Concludes that: enabling technologies may not be sufficient to bring about major changes in communication form; new forms of information communication are slow to develop and to take full advantage of new capabilities; periodicals and books took years to develop and the same shoul be expected of electronic periodicals; authors must have confidence in the ability of electronic periodicals to serve as public knowledge; the central function of periodicals is fully embedded in the scientific process; the information content carried in the structure of the current system must not be lost (at least until technology can provide alternatives); and electronic periodicals must be able to serve the social needs of subdisciplines of scholars

0.009917757 = product of:
  0.05950654 = sum of:
    0.05950654 = weight(_text_:history in 4810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05950654 = score(doc=4810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 4810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4810)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The DAISY Consortium created the first digital talking book (DTB) and this is now known worldwide as the DAISY format. The DAISY DTB is the application of existing worldwide standards used to define the next generation of information technology for people who are blind and print disabled. The acronym DAISY, digital audio-based information system, is a name both for a reading system and for the consortium of libraries, non-profit organizations and for-profit Friends of the Consortium around the world that spearhead the development of the International standard. This article will briefly trace the history of DAISY's development and go on to explain the current activities and future plans for the single worldwide standard.

0.009366473 = product of:
  0.05619884 = sum of:
    0.05619884 = product of:
      0.11239768 = sum of:
        0.11239768 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11239768 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.007947717 = product of:
  0.047686297 = sum of:
    0.047686297 = product of:
      0.095372595 = sum of:
        0.095372595 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095372595 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

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