-
Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Hartley, J.: Spamming in scholarly publishing : a case study (2016)
0.03
0.029227406 = product of:
0.05845481 = sum of:
0.05845481 = product of:
0.11690962 = sum of:
0.11690962 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11690962 = score(doc=3058,freq=6.0), product of:
0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = queryNorm
0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, 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 social science journals? (1997)
0.03
0.02699912 = product of:
0.05399824 = sum of:
0.05399824 = product of:
0.10799648 = sum of:
0.10799648 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10799648 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = queryNorm
0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Learned publishing. 10(1997) no.4, S.313-317
-
Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Publication fees for open access journals : different disciplines-different methods (2013)
0.03
0.02699912 = product of:
0.05399824 = sum of:
0.05399824 = product of:
0.10799648 = sum of:
0.10799648 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10799648 = score(doc=1140,freq=2.0), product of:
0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = queryNorm
0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, 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%).
-
Hartley, J.: Applying psychology to text design : a case history (1997)
0.02
0.017338289 = product of:
0.034676578 = sum of:
0.034676578 = product of:
0.069353156 = sum of:
0.069353156 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069353156 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = 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
0.010402973 = product of:
0.020805946 = sum of:
0.020805946 = product of:
0.04161189 = sum of:
0.04161189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04161189 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = 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
0.0086691445 = product of:
0.017338289 = sum of:
0.017338289 = product of:
0.034676578 = sum of:
0.034676578 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034676578 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.051188353 = 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
