Search (171 results, page 1 of 9)

0.06434176 = product of:
  0.17157803 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.059740886 = product of:
  0.15930903 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=1656,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.04873059 = product of:
  0.12994824 = sum of:
    0.02893373 = weight(_text_:libraries in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02893373 = score(doc=298,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22226098 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.029919608 = weight(_text_:case in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029919608 = score(doc=298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17173493 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
    0.07109491 = weight(_text_:pacific in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07109491 = score(doc=298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3193714 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.059301 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22260886 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.059301 = idf(docFreq=37, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.9, S.1386 (L.A. Ennis): "Written by John Willinsky. Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia and Open Journals Systems Software des eloper. the eighth hook in the Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing series (edited by William Y. Arms) provides a compelling and convincing argument in favor of open access. At the core of this work is Willinsky's "access principle." a commitment that "research carries with it a responsibility to extend circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit from it" (p.xii). One by one Willinsky tackles the obstacles. both real and perceived, to open access. succeeding in his goal to "inform and inspire a larger debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge" (p.xiv). The author does note the irony of publishing a hook while advocating for open access, but points out that he does so to reach a larger audience. Willinsky also points out that most of the chapters' earlier versions can be found in open-access journals and on his Web site (http://www.11ed.educubc.ca/faculty/willinsky.html). The Access Principle is organized topically into thirteen chapters covering a broad range of practical and theoretical issues. Taken together. these chapters provide the reader with an excellent introduction to the open-access debate as well as all the potential benefits and possible impacts of the open-access movement. The author also includes six appendices. with information on metadata and indexing. os er twenty pages of references, and an index. ... All of Willinsky's arguments arc convincing and heartfelt. It is apparent throughout the hook that the author deeply believes in the principles behind open access. and his passion and conviction come through in the work. making the hook a thought-provoking and very interesting read. While he offers numerous examples to illustrate his points throughout the work. he does not. however. offer solutions or state that he has all the answers. In that, he succeeds in his goal to craft a hook that "informs and inspires. As a result, The Access Principle is an important read for information professionals, researchers, and academics of all kinds, whether or not the reader agrees with Willinsky."

LCSH

Libraries and electronic publishing

Series

Digital libraries and electronic publishing

Subject

Libraries and electronic publishing

0.027009096 = product of:
  0.108036384 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 3429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=3429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 3429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3429)
    0.048798583 = weight(_text_:studies in 3429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048798583 = score(doc=3429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 3429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3429)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This research applies statistical time series analysis to examine the changing pattern of scholars' attitudes toward open-access (OA) journal publishing from the early 1990s. By synthesizing survey results in existing studies, this research focuses on representative aspects of the attitudes and behaviors recorded through the years. It finds that although an increase in the publishing and awareness rates of scholars with regard to OA journals has been observed, scholars have been consistently concerned with the low prestige of such journals and their lack of peer review, which is not the case in practice. It is hoped that the findings will provide useful information for the improvement of OA advocacy.

0.02413932 = product of:
  0.09655728 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
    0.026845016 = product of:
      0.05369003 = sum of:
        0.05369003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05369003 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Discusses the changing forces of demand, supply and technical change in the field of academic publishing. Covers electronic publishing; the UnCover document delivery service from B.H. Blackwell; the work of Blackwell Science and Blackwell Publishers and electronic pilot studies

Source

IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22

0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=1553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Electronic documents produced in business processes are valuable information resources for organizations. In many cases they have to be accessible long after the life of the business processes or information systems in connection with which they were created. To improve the management and preservation of documents, organizations are deploying Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a standardized format for documents. The goal of this paper is to increase understanding of XML document management and provide a framework to enable the analysis and description of the management of XML documents throughout their life. We followed the design science approach. We introduce a document life cycle model consisting of five phases. For each of the phases we describe the typical activities related to the management of XML documents. Furthermore, we also identify the typical actors, systems, and types of content items associated with the activities of the phases. We demonstrate the use of the model in two case studies: one concerning the State Budget Proposal of the Finnish government and the other concerning a faculty council meeting agenda at a university.

0.02157088 = product of:
  0.05752235 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, 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=3769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Content

Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed

Series

Global studies in libraries and information ; Volume 2

0.019874409 = product of:
  0.079497635 = sum of:
    0.06339063 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06339063 = score(doc=1385,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4869494 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1385, 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=1385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This volume is the first book coherently summarizing the current issues in digital libraries research, design and management. It presents, in a homogeneous way, thoroughly revised versions of 15 papers accepted for the First International Workshop on Digital Libraries, DL '94, held at Rutgers University in May 1994; in addition there are two introductory chapters provided by the volume editors, as well as a comprehensive bibliography listing 262 entries. Besides introductory aspects, the topics addressed are administration and management, information retrieval and hypertext, classification and indexing, and prototypes and applications. The volume is intended for researchers and design professionals in the field, as well as for experts from libraries administration and scientific publishing.

Date

22. 1.1996 18:26:45

0.019781101 = product of:
  0.079124406 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=834,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

First in a series of 4 articles discussing the future of the e-journal considering such issues as pricing, implementation, distribution copyright and format from the perspectives of publiahers, librarians and editors. Lists articles providing an overview of what has been happening with e-journals over the last 2 years from the following titles: access methods to electronic journals via the Internet; the alarmists versus the equilibrists: re-examining the role of the serials professionals in the information ages; BH Blackwell, Readmore to develop electronic journal service; cheaper by the case; electronic chemistry journals: elemental concerns; electronic journals: trends in the WWW Internet access; electronic journals market and technology; electronics journbal update; CJTCS - Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science; Elsevier rolls out digital library; IT and the sciences; JAVELIN: an approach to the development of a new kind of electronic journal; projecting the electronic revolution while budgeting for the status quo; a theory of polar information; TULIP: participating in an experiment of electronic journal access - administrative challenges to ensure success; The University Licensing Program (TULIP); electronic journals in materials science; and the weekly journal of sciences goes electronic

Source

Science and technology libraries. 16(1997) no.2, S.65-68

0.019311456 = product of:
  0.077245824 = sum of:
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.015059397 = product of:
  0.060237586 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1872,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1872, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1872)
    0.031888437 = product of:
      0.06377687 = sum of:
        0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 1872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06377687 = score(doc=1872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 1872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A "new model" academic chemistry library is proposed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in which primary access to journals is electronic, replacing traditional print access, binding, and shelving. Print journals will continue to be purchased and archived unbound in a remote storage facility following unbound display and access for twelve months. The new model, initially proposed by administrative chemistry faculty, was assessed in a feasibility study which looked at the stability, quantity, and quality of electronic journals; it also included a survey of chemistry faculty, a review of internal management data, and an analysis of use of chemistry journals, both print and electronic. The feasibility study found support for the model in every area, but with a few caution flags and speed bumps predicted along the way.

0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 6685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6685)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6685, 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=6685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Articles contributed to a report of the results of project ELVYN, sponsored by the British Library Research and Development Department and conducted by Loughborough University, in conjunction with the Institute of Physics Publishing and SCONUL, to test the practicalities and potential pitfalls of publishers delivering periodicals electronically to libraries. Presents the results and sets them in the context of current developments in electronic publishing

Date

1. 3.1997 18:22:00

0.014620107 = product of:
  0.058480427 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.012074519 = product of:
  0.09659615 = sum of:
    0.09659615 = weight(_text_:studies in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09659615 = score(doc=2986,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.61088353 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0111470455 = product of:
  0.044588182 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01111404 = product of:
  0.04445616 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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

0.01111404 = product of:
  0.04445616 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.009999052 = product of:
  0.07999241 = sum of:
    0.07999241 = sum of:
      0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0531474 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026845016 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00936646 = product of:
  0.03746584 = sum of:
    0.026727835 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026727835 = score(doc=3608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2053159 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.