Search (192 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.12 
    0.120120615 = product of:
  0.24024123 = sum of:
    0.24024123 = sum of:
      0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.142333 = score(doc=3582,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.09790823 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09790823 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = 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)
    Abstract
    Ein Statistikprofessor im Ruhestand beweist eine berühmte mathematische Vermutung über mehrdimensionale Normalverteilungen - und findet kaum Anklang, weil er nicht in den großen Journals publiziert.
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  2. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.07 
    0.0740476 = product of:
  0.1480952 = sum of:
    0.1480952 = sum of:
      0.099633105 = weight(_text_:journals in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099633105 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.38832808 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.0484621 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0484621 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Das EconBiz Academic Career Kit ist ein interaktives Online-Tutorial für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. In drei Modulen geht es um die Themen: erste Veröffentlichung, Open Access, Predatory Journals und Urheberrecht - Wissenschaftskommunikation, kollaboratives Arbeiten, Networking und Metriken - Forschungsdatenmanagement. Angebote der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz sind in diesen Feldern und für diese Zielgruppe in Deutschland noch nicht flächendeckend verbreitet. Darum - und weil Forschende sich zu diesen Fragen meist im Netz informieren - ist das Academic Career Kit als OER unter der Lizenz CC-BY veröffentlicht und damit zur Bearbeitung und Weiterverwendung durch Dritte freigegeben.
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
  3. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.07 
    0.067631796 = product of:
  0.13526359 = sum of:
    0.13526359 = product of:
      0.40579078 = sum of:
        0.40579078 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.40579078 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  4. Popper, K.R.: Three worlds : the Tanner lecture on human values. Deliverd at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978 (1978) 0.05 
    0.05410544 = product of:
  0.10821088 = sum of:
    0.10821088 = product of:
      0.3246326 = sum of:
        0.3246326 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3246326 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H
  5. Academic publishing : No peeking (2014) 0.05 
    0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers
  6. Daudaravicius, V.: ¬A framework for keyphrase extraction from scientific journals (2016) 0.05 
    0.049816553 = product of:
  0.099633105 = sum of:
    0.099633105 = product of:
      0.19926621 = sum of:
        0.19926621 = weight(_text_:journals in 2930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19926621 = score(doc=2930,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.77665615 = fieldWeight in 2930, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We present a framework for keyphrase extraction from scientific journals in diverse research fields. While journal articles are often provided with manually assigned keywords, it is not clear how to automatically extract keywords and measure their significance for a set of journal articles. We compare extracted keyphrases from journals in the fields of astrophysics, mathematics, physics, and computer science. We show that the presented statistics-based framework is able to demonstrate differences among journals, and that the extracted keyphrases can be used to represent journal or conference research topics, dynamics, and specificity.
  7. Publish and don't be damned : some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so (2018) 0.05 
    0.047739945 = product of:
  0.09547989 = sum of:
    0.09547989 = product of:
      0.19095978 = sum of:
        0.19095978 = weight(_text_:journals in 4333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19095978 = score(doc=4333,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.7442812 = fieldWeight in 4333, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    One estimate puts the number of papers in questionable journals at 400,000.
    Content
    "Whether to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed-a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as "peer reviewed" has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny."
    Source
    https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so
  8. Blosser, J.; Michaelson, R.; Routh. R.; Xia, P.: Defining the landscape of Web resources : Concluding Report of the BAER Web Resources Sub-Group (2000) 0.04 
    0.042312916 = product of:
  0.08462583 = sum of:
    0.08462583 = sum of:
      0.056933206 = weight(_text_:journals in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056933206 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.22190176 = fieldWeight in 1447, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1447)
      0.027692629 = weight(_text_:22 in 1447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027692629 = score(doc=1447,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05109862 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1447, 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=1447)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The BAER Web Resources Group was charged in October 1999 with defining and describing the parameters of electronic resources that do not clearly belong to the categories being defined by the BAER Digital Group or the BAER Electronic Journals Group. After some difficulty identifying precisely which resources fell under the Group's charge, we finally named the following types of resources for our consideration: web sites, electronic texts, indexes, databases and abstracts, online reference resources, and networked and non-networked CD-ROMs. Electronic resources are a vast and growing collection that touch nearly every department within the Library. It is unrealistic to think one department can effectively administer all aspects of the collection. The Group then began to focus on the concern of bibliographic access to these varied resources, and to define parameters for handling or processing them within the Library. Some key elements became evident as the work progressed. * Selection process of resources to be acquired for the collection * Duplication of effort * Use of CORC * Resource Finder design * Maintenance of Resource Finder * CD-ROMs not networked * Communications * Voyager search limitations. An unexpected collaboration with the Web Development Committee on the Resource Finder helped to steer the Group to more detailed descriptions of bibliographic access. This collaboration included development of data elements for the Resource Finder database, and some discussions on Library staff processing of the resources. The Web Resources Group invited expert testimony to help the Group broaden its view to envision public use of the resources and discuss concerns related to technical services processing. The first testimony came from members of the Resource Finder Committee. Some background information on the Web Development Resource Finder Committee was shared. The second testimony was from librarians who select electronic texts. Three main themes were addressed: accessing CD-ROMs; the issue of including non-networked CD-ROMs in the Resource Finder; and, some special concerns about electronic texts. The third testimony came from librarians who select indexes and abstracts and also provide Reference services. Appendices to this report include minutes of the meetings with the experts (Appendix A), a list of proposed data elements to be used in the Resource Finder (Appendix B), and recommendations made to the Resource Finder Committee (Appendix C). Below are summaries of the key elements.
    Date
    21. 4.2002 10:22:31
  9. Chawla, D.S.: Hundreds of 'predatory' journals indexed on leading scholarly database (2021) 0.04 
    0.03558325 = product of:
  0.0711665 = sum of:
    0.0711665 = product of:
      0.142333 = sum of:
        0.142333 = weight(_text_:journals in 148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.142333 = score(doc=148,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5547544 = fieldWeight in 148, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=148)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  10. Harzing, A.-W.: Comparing the Google Scholar h-index with the ISI Journal Impact Factor (2008) 0.04 
    0.035225622 = product of:
  0.070451245 = sum of:
    0.070451245 = product of:
      0.14090249 = sum of:
        0.14090249 = weight(_text_:journals in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14090249 = score(doc=855,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.54917884 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
  11. Abdelkareem, M.A.A.: In terms of publication index, what indicator is the best for researchers indexing, Google Scholar, Scopus, Clarivate or others? (2018) 0.04 
    0.035225622 = product of:
  0.070451245 = sum of:
    0.070451245 = product of:
      0.14090249 = sum of:
        0.14090249 = weight(_text_:journals in 4548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14090249 = score(doc=4548,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.54917884 = fieldWeight in 4548, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I believe that Google Scholar is the most popular academic indexing way for researchers and citations. However, some other indexing institutions may be more professional than Google Scholar but not as popular as Google Scholar. Other indexing websites like Scopus and Clarivate are providing more statistical figures for scholars, institutions or even journals. On account of publication citations, always Google Scholar shows higher citations for a paper than other indexing websites since Google Scholar consider most of the publication platforms so he can easily count the citations. While other databases just consider the citations come from those journals that are already indexed in their database
  12. Shala, E.: ¬Die Autonomie des Menschen und der Maschine : gegenwärtige Definitionen von Autonomie zwischen philosophischem Hintergrund und technologischer Umsetzbarkeit (2014) 0.03 
    0.033815898 = product of:
  0.067631796 = sum of:
    0.067631796 = product of:
      0.20289539 = sum of:
        0.20289539 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20289539 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.
  13. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.03 
    0.033815898 = product of:
  0.067631796 = sum of:
    0.067631796 = product of:
      0.20289539 = sum of:
        0.20289539 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20289539 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.43321466 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  14. Herb, U.: Ablehnungsquoten wissenschaftlicher Journale (2016) 0.03 
    0.028466603 = product of:
  0.056933206 = sum of:
    0.056933206 = product of:
      0.11386641 = sum of:
        0.11386641 = weight(_text_:journals in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11386641 = score(doc=2701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.44380352 = fieldWeight in 2701, 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=2701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Je höher die Ablehnungsrate eines wissenschaftlichen Journals, desto exklusiver aus Sicht von Autoren das Privileg einer akzeptierten Einreichung. Und - so die Annahme - umso größer die Qualität der publizierenden Journale. Eine Untersuchung widerspricht nun dieser landläufigen Meinung und spielt in die Hände von Kritikern wie Prof. Gerhard Fröhlich von der Universität Linz, der Ablehnungsquoten als reinen Prestigeschmuck ansieht.
  15. Information als Rohstoff für Innovation : Programm der Bundesregierung 1996-2000 (1996) 0.03 
    0.027692629 = product of:
  0.055385258 = sum of:
    0.055385258 = product of:
      0.110770516 = sum of:
        0.110770516 = weight(_text_:22 in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110770516 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5449, 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=5449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.1997 19:26:34
  16. Ask me[@sk.me]: your global information guide : der Wegweiser durch die Informationswelten (1996) 0.03 
    0.027692629 = product of:
  0.055385258 = sum of:
    0.055385258 = product of:
      0.110770516 = sum of:
        0.110770516 = weight(_text_:22 in 5837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110770516 = score(doc=5837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5837, 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=5837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30.11.1996 13:22:37
  17. Kosmos Weltatlas 2000 : Der Kompass für das 21. Jahrhundert. Inklusive Welt-Routenplaner (1999) 0.03 
    0.027692629 = product of:
  0.055385258 = sum of:
    0.055385258 = product of:
      0.110770516 = sum of:
        0.110770516 = weight(_text_:22 in 4085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110770516 = score(doc=4085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4085, 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=4085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    7.11.1999 18:22:39
  18. Mitchell, J.S.: DDC 22 : an introduction (2003) 0.03 
    0.02709114 = product of:
  0.05418228 = sum of:
    0.05418228 = product of:
      0.10836456 = sum of:
        0.10836456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10836456 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.6055961 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 (DDC 22) will be issued simultaneously in print and web versions in July 2003. The new edition is the first full print update to the Dewey Decimal Classification system in seven years-it includes several significant updates and many new numbers and topics. DDC 22 also features some fundamental structural changes that have been introduced with the goals of promoting classifier efficiency and improving the DDC for use in a variety of applications in the web environment. Most importantly, the content of the new edition has been shaped by the needs and recommendations of Dewey users around the world. The worldwide user community has an important role in shaping the future of the DDC.
    Object
    DDC-22
  19. Hirschmann, B.: Altmetrics - neue Formen der Impact-Messung auf dem Vormarsch? (2013) 0.02 
    0.024908276 = product of:
  0.049816553 = sum of:
    0.049816553 = product of:
      0.099633105 = sum of:
        0.099633105 = weight(_text_:journals in 2187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099633105 = score(doc=2187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.38832808 = fieldWeight in 2187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Der oft zitierte Slogan "publish or perish" ist vielen ein Begriff. Er verweist darauf, dass Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler zunehmend danach bewertet werden, wo und wie viel sie publizieren. Auch Berufungskommissionen legen Wert auf eine umfangreiche Publikationsliste. Artikel in den "Top-Journals" eines Fachgebiets sind also die Währung, mit der in der wissenschaftlichen Community gehandelt wird. Doch woran lässt sich festmachen, welchen Einfluss eine Zeitschrift in der Fach-Community hat? In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich hierfür der Journal Impact Factor (JIF) als klassischer Vergleichswert etabliert. Der JIF berechnet den "Einfluss" einer Fachzeitschrift anhand der durchschnittlichen Anzahl von Zitaten, die ein darin veröffentlichter Artikel erreicht.
  20. Buranyi, S.: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? (2017) 0.02 
    0.024908276 = product of:
  0.049816553 = sum of:
    0.049816553 = product of:
      0.099633105 = sum of:
        0.099633105 = weight(_text_:journals in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099633105 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.38832808 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google - and it was created by one of Britain's most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. "Even scientists who are fighting for reform are often not aware of the roots of the system: how, in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 96
  • e 88
  • el 2
  • a 1
  • nl 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 87
  • i 10
  • m 5
  • r 4
  • b 3
  • s 3
  • n 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects