Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

0.036319375 = product of:
  0.12711781 = sum of:
    0.06767767 = weight(_text_:great in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06767767 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
    0.059440136 = product of:
      0.11888027 = sum of:
        0.11888027 = weight(_text_:britain in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11888027 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28835937 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.4122643 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.019481419 = product of:
  0.13636993 = sum of:
    0.13636993 = weight(_text_:assisted in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13636993 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26102042 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.52244925 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Examines 2 European Commission projects starting in Dec 95 aimed at managing access and protection for intellectual property. The Intellectual Multimedia Property Rights Model and Terminology for Universal References (IMPRIMATUR) project involves 16 partners with a network server in Italy. The Coordinating Project for Electronic Authors' Right Management Systems (COPEARMS) aims to develop the copyright in Transmitted Electronic Documents (CITED) work. Two other projects are also described: Copyright Ownership Protection in Computer Assisted Training (COPICAT) and MultiMedia Education System for Librarians Introducing Remote Interactive Processing of Electronic Documents (MURIEL)

0.018460691 = product of:
  0.06461242 = sum of:
    0.054142136 = weight(_text_:great in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054142136 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.010470283 = product of:
      0.020940566 = sum of:
        0.020940566 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020940566 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

0.015469182 = product of:
  0.10828427 = sum of:
    0.10828427 = weight(_text_:great in 8419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10828427 = score(doc=8419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 8419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8419)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

An alternative publishing system for scholarly communication and information is emerging on international computer networks such as Internet and Bitnet. This is evident as a growing number of electronic periodicals (e-journals) provide scholarly articles, columns and reviews and have advantages over print publications, such as the speed of publication and dissemination. Electronic periodicals hold great promise, but technological problems and academic acceptance could limit their effectiveness. Some examples of electronic periodicals were investigated as well as the advantages and problems currently associated with this new source of information

0.015189477 = product of:
  0.106326334 = sum of:
    0.106326334 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.106326334 = score(doc=2348,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2293201 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.46365905 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to understand how users determine credibility in the internet environment from a conceptual level and the implications of these new methods of credibility determination on internet tools (primarily software) and services. Design/methodology/approach - The author first examines the underlying reasons for increased dependence on the internet for information, using electronic commerce as a starting point. The central concept of "information self-sufficiency" is introduced and then examined through the lens of the internet and conversation theory. Findings - The author finds that users are shifting from more traditional "authority" methods of credibility determination, where users cede determinations to trusted third parties, to a "reliability" approach where users seek commonalities and coherence among multiple information sources. This has led to an increased pressure for participation and openness at all levels of the internet. Research limitations/implications - Studies on users and credibility must better account for often invisible technical factors. Practical implications - Libraries must take into account a greater need for participation and technical fluency when dealing with patrons, particularly in information literacy programs and instruction. Originality/value - This paper presents a large-scale conceptual approach to credibility on the internet. It seeks to inform current approaches to the subject nested in communications and instruction with the unique technical environment of the internet.

0.013535535 = product of:
  0.09474874 = sum of:
    0.09474874 = weight(_text_:great in 8409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09474874 = score(doc=8409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 8409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8409)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

While reuse is currently the focus of much attention in the programming language community, it is also a central, but less noticed, issue in the creation and use of documents, and therefore in the design of document systems. To a great extend, the work of producing new documents, and new versions of old documents, involves reusing pieces of previously existing documents, where reuse involves finding the relevant material, modifying it as needed, and stitching the pieces together. Aims to demonstrate how a focus on reuse can shed light on current efforts to build structured document systems and to design and use standards, such as SGML, ODA and OLE, that address structured and compound documents

0.013535535 = product of:
  0.09474874 = sum of:
    0.09474874 = weight(_text_:great in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09474874 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The telecommunications service is a scientific tool which libraries should use to save time in supplying information. Information can be read, retrieved, copied or discussed immediately with the help of electronic publishing. The service has great social potential. International cooperation is important yet national identity must be maintained and access to information guaranteed. If librarians regard electronic publishing simply as a technology, the readers will not accept it and the system will become ineffectual. More research is needed on copyright law problems. Electronic publishing improves data bank access and should overcome inequalities between regions and sections of the population.

0.011601887 = product of:
  0.081213206 = sum of:
    0.081213206 = weight(_text_:great in 4210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.081213206 = score(doc=4210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 4210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4210)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The greatest number of open access journals (OAJs) is found in the sciences and their influence is growing. However, there are only a few studies on the acceptance and thereby integration of these OAJs in the scholarly communication system. Even fewer studies provide insight into the differences across disciplines. This study is an analysis of the citing behaviour in journals within three science fields: biology, mathematics, and pharmacy and pharmacology. It is a statistical analysis of OAJs as well as non-OAJs including both the citing and cited side of the journal to journal citations. The multivariate linear regression reveals many similarities in citing behaviour across fields and media. But it also points to great differences in the integration of OAJs. The integration of OAJs in the scholarly communication system varies considerably across fields. The implications for bibliometric research are discussed.

0.009668238 = product of:
  0.06767767 = sum of:
    0.06767767 = weight(_text_:great in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06767767 = score(doc=1911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This article aims to focus on usage data in respect to full-text downloads of journal articles, which is considered an important usage (satisfaction) metric by librarians and publishers. The purpose is to evaluate the evidence regarding full-text viewing by pooling together data on the full-text viewing of tens of thousands of users studied as part of a number of investigations of e-journal databases conducted during the Virtual Scholar research programme. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reviews the web logs of a number of electronic journal libraries including OhioLINK and ScienceDirect using Deep Log Analysis, which is a more sophisticated form of transactional log analysis. The frequency, characteristics and diversity of full-text viewing are examined. The article also features an investigation into the time spent online viewing full-text articles in order to get a clearer understanding of the significance of full-text viewing, especially in regard to reading. Findings - The main findings are that there is a great deal of variety amongst scholars in their full-text viewing habits and that a large proportion of views are very cursory in nature, although there is survey evidence to suggest that reading goes on offline. Originality/value - This is the first time that full-text viewing evidence is studied on such a large scale.

0.007478774 = product of:
  0.052351415 = sum of:
    0.052351415 = product of:
      0.10470283 = sum of:
        0.10470283 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10470283 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

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

0.0063459505 = product of:
  0.04442165 = sum of:
    0.04442165 = product of:
      0.0888433 = sum of:
        0.0888433 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0888433 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

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

0.0059830192 = product of:
  0.041881133 = sum of:
    0.041881133 = product of:
      0.083762266 = sum of:
        0.083762266 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083762266 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.0059830192 = product of:
  0.041881133 = sum of:
    0.041881133 = product of:
      0.083762266 = sum of:
        0.083762266 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083762266 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.0059830192 = product of:
  0.041881133 = sum of:
    0.041881133 = product of:
      0.083762266 = sum of:
        0.083762266 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083762266 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.0058009434 = product of:
  0.040606603 = sum of:
    0.040606603 = weight(_text_:great in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040606603 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.

0.005288292 = product of:
  0.037018042 = sum of:
    0.037018042 = product of:
      0.074036084 = sum of:
        0.074036084 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074036084 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.0052351416 = product of:
  0.03664599 = sum of:
    0.03664599 = product of:
      0.07329198 = sum of:
        0.07329198 = weight(_text_:22 in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07329198 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Börsenblatt. Nr.50 vom 24.6.1994, S.19-22

0.0052351416 = product of:
  0.03664599 = sum of:
    0.03664599 = product of:
      0.07329198 = sum of:
        0.07329198 = weight(_text_:22 in 6664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07329198 = score(doc=6664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.181-247

0.0052351416 = product of:
  0.03664599 = sum of:
    0.03664599 = product of:
      0.07329198 = sum of:
        0.07329198 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07329198 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13530953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03863967 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

12. 2.1996 22:34:46

0.004834119 = product of:
  0.033838835 = sum of:
    0.033838835 = weight(_text_:great in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033838835 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21757144 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03863967 = queryNorm
        0.15552977 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.