Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.050406616 = product of:
  0.12601654 = sum of:
    0.10559587 = weight(_text_:great in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10559587 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
    0.020420669 = product of:
      0.040841337 = sum of:
        0.040841337 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040841337 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 730, 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=730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The digital library is a socio-technical concept of great significance. It redefines the relationships between information providers and intermediaries and, potentially, transforms the way that services are delivered to users. This article, based on a British Library Research & Innovation Centre funded study, reviews current themes and directions in digital library research and scholarship. It locates the digital library in a simple work-oriented framework emphasising its social as well as its systems and informational dimensions. The article highlights differences in understanding of the digital library construct between the library and computer science communities and identifies some critical areas for further research.

Date

21. 1.2007 12:03:22

0.015085125 = product of:
  0.075425625 = sum of:
    0.075425625 = weight(_text_:great in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075425625 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper offers a practical insight into the application of Lotka's law of author productivity to the question of how likely it is that an author will return to a particular publisher (rather than make another contribution to a subject literature, which is its usual application). The question of author loyalty, especially repeat visits, is one which is of great interest to publishers. Design/methodology/approach - This paper shows, possibly for the first time, that the author productivity distribution predicted by Lotka's law for subject literatures also holds for publisher aggregates, in this case, all Emerald authors. Findings - The ideas presented here are speculative and programmatic: they raise questions and provide a robust intellectual framework for further research into the determinants of author loyalty, as seen from the publisher side. Practical implications - The implications for commissioning editors and marketing departments in journal publishing houses are that repeat visiting authors are indeed scarce commodities, not necessarily because of barriers put in their way by publishers, but because research production is very asymmetrically skewed in favour of a small productive élite. Originality/value - By analysing survey data it should be possible, within very broad parameters, to identify clusters of say high, medium and low research activity authors. This would provide insight into potential "hot spots" of future publishing intent and, in the case of dense and overworked research areas, early warning as to when to start looking elsewhere for future articles.

0.015085125 = product of:
  0.075425625 = sum of:
    0.075425625 = weight(_text_:great in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075425625 = score(doc=1911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.13-25

0.0035006858 = product of:
  0.01750343 = sum of:
    0.01750343 = product of:
      0.03500686 = sum of:
        0.03500686 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03500686 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2680, 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=2680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

23. 2.2009 17:22:41