-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.07
0.06972865 = product of:
0.1394573 = sum of:
0.1394573 = product of:
0.2789146 = sum of:
0.2789146 = weight(_text_:journals in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2789146 = score(doc=2749,freq=12.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
1.0870922 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Structured abstracts have now become widespread in medical research journals. Considers whether or not such structured abstracts can be used effectively in social science journals. Reviews a a selection of studies to see if structured abstracts written for social science journals are more informative, easier to read and easier to search than their traditional equivalents. Results suggest that structured abstracts are appropriate for social science journals. Editors of social science journals should consider adopting structured abstracts
-
Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Publication fees for open access journals : different disciplines-different methods (2013)
0.06
0.06365326 = product of:
0.12730652 = sum of:
0.12730652 = product of:
0.25461304 = sum of:
0.25461304 = weight(_text_:journals in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.25461304 = score(doc=1140,freq=10.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.9923749 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Many authors appear to think that most open access (OA) journals charge authors for their publications. This brief communication examines the basis for such beliefs and finds it wanting. Indeed, in this study of over 9,000 OA journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, only 28% charged authors for publishing in their journals. This figure, however, was highest in various disciplines in medicine (47%) and the sciences (43%) and lowest in the humanities (4%) and the arts (0%).
-
Tartanus, M.; Wnuk, A.; Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Graphs and prestige in agricultural journals (2013)
0.06
0.055696603 = product of:
0.111393206 = sum of:
0.111393206 = product of:
0.22278641 = sum of:
0.22278641 = weight(_text_:journals in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22278641 = score(doc=1051,freq=10.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.86832803 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article, we report on the status of graphs in 21 scientific agricultural journals indexed in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge. We analyze the authors' use of graphs in this context in relation to the quality of these journals as measured by their 2-year impact factors. We note a substantial variability in the use of graphs in this context: For one journal, 100% of the papers include graphs, whereas for others only about 50% of them include graphs. We also show that higher impact agricultural journals publish more papers with graphs and that there are more graphs in these papers than in those in journals with lower impact factors (r = +0.40).
-
Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Hartley, J.: Spamming in scholarly publishing : a case study (2016)
0.04
0.03558325 = product of:
0.0711665 = sum of:
0.0711665 = product of:
0.142333 = sum of:
0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.142333 = score(doc=3058,freq=8.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Spam has become an issue of concern in almost all areas where the Internet is involved, and many people today have become victims of spam from publishers and individual journals. We studied this phenomenon in the field of scholarly publishing from the perspective of a single author. We examined 1,024 such spam e-mails received by Marcin Kozak from publishers and journals over a period of 391 days, asking him to submit an article to their journal. We collected the following information: where the request came from; publishing model applied; fees charged; inclusion or not in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and presence or not in Beall's (2014) listing of dubious journals. Our research showed that most of the publishers that sent e-mails inviting manuscripts were (i) using the open access model, (ii) using article-processing charges to fund their journal's operations; (iii) offering very short peer-review times, (iv) on Beall's list, and (v) misrepresenting the location of their headquarters. Some years ago, a letter of invitation to submit an article to a particular journal was considered a kind of distinction. Today, e-mails inviting submissions are generally spam, something that misleads young researchers and irritates experienced ones.
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in non-medical science journals? (1998)
0.03
0.028466603 = product of:
0.056933206 = sum of:
0.056933206 = product of:
0.11386641 = sum of:
0.11386641 = weight(_text_:journals in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11386641 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.44380352 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Hartley, J.; Betts, L.: Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences (2009)
0.02
0.021349952 = product of:
0.042699903 = sum of:
0.042699903 = product of:
0.08539981 = sum of:
0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08539981 = score(doc=3115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.
-
Cabanac, G.; Hubert, G.; Hartley, J.: Solo versus collaborative writing : discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs in academic articles (2014)
0.02
0.021349952 = product of:
0.042699903 = sum of:
0.042699903 = product of:
0.08539981 = sum of:
0.08539981 = weight(_text_:journals in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08539981 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.33285263 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The number of authors collaborating to write scientific articles has been increasing steadily, and with this collaboration, other factors have also changed, such as the length of articles and the number of citations. However, little is known about potential discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs between single and collaborating authors. In this article, we ask whether multiauthor articles contain more tables and graphs than single-author articles, and we studied 5,180 recent articles published in six science and social sciences journals. We found that pairs and multiple authors used significantly more tables and graphs than single authors. Such findings indicate that there is a greater emphasis on the role of tables and graphs in collaborative writing, and we discuss some of the possible causes and implications of these findings.
-
Hartley, J.: Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines (2006)
0.02
0.017791625 = product of:
0.03558325 = sum of:
0.03558325 = product of:
0.0711665 = sum of:
0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0711665 = score(doc=195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=195)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reading and writing book reviews for learned journals plays an important part in academic life but little is known about how academics carry out these tasks. The aim of this research was to explore these activities with academics from the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. An electronic questionnaire was used to ascertain (a) how often the respondents read and wrote book reviews, (b) how useful they found them, and (c) what features they thought important in book reviews. Fifty-two academics in the arts, 53 in the social sciences, and 51 in the sciences replied. There were few disciplinary differences. Most respondents reported reading between one and five book reviews a month and writing between one and two a year. There was high overall agreement between what the respondents thought were important features of book reviews, but there were also wide individual differences between them. This agreement across the disciplines supports the notion that book reviews can be seen as an academic genre with measurable features. This has implications for how they are written, and how authors might be taught to write them better. A potential checklist for authors is suggested.
-
Hartley, J.: Applying psychology to text design : a case history (1997)
0.02
0.017307894 = product of:
0.03461579 = sum of:
0.03461579 = product of:
0.06923158 = sum of:
0.06923158 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06923158 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 616, 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=616)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.01
0.010384736 = product of:
0.020769471 = sum of:
0.020769471 = product of:
0.041538943 = sum of:
0.041538943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041538943 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.01
0.008653947 = product of:
0.017307894 = sum of:
0.017307894 = product of:
0.03461579 = sum of:
0.03461579 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03461579 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05109862 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, 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=7673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
