-
Pinfield, S.; Salter, J.; Bath, P.A.: ¬A "Gold-centric" implementation of open access : hybrid journals, the "Total cost of publication," and policy development in the UK and beyond (2017)
0.03
0.034979578 = product of:
0.069959156 = sum of:
0.069959156 = product of:
0.13991831 = sum of:
0.13991831 = weight(_text_:policy in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13991831 = score(doc=3797,freq=6.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.5130373 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favoring "Gold" OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the "total cost of publication"-comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs), and new administrative costs-for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the "total cost of publication," APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. "Hybrid" options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored, particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs.
-
Dalen, H.P. van; Henkens, K.: Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : a worldwide survey (2012)
0.03
0.034272846 = product of:
0.06854569 = sum of:
0.06854569 = product of:
0.13709138 = sum of:
0.13709138 = weight(_text_:policy in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13709138 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.50267184 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.
-
Fallaw, C.; Dunham, E.; Wickes, E.; Strong, D.; Stein, A.; Zhang, Q.; Rimkus, K.; ill Ingram, B.; Imker, H.J.: Overly honest data repository development (2016)
0.03
0.028273653 = product of:
0.056547306 = sum of:
0.056547306 = product of:
0.11309461 = sum of:
0.11309461 = weight(_text_:policy in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11309461 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.4146831 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.02
0.024364771 = product of:
0.048729543 = sum of:
0.048729543 = product of:
0.097459085 = sum of:
0.097459085 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.097459085 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
-
Collins, H.M.; Reyes-Galindo, L.; Ginsparg, P.: ¬A note concerning primary source knowledge (2017)
0.02
0.024234561 = product of:
0.048469122 = sum of:
0.048469122 = product of:
0.096938245 = sum of:
0.096938245 = weight(_text_:policy in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096938245 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We present the results of running 4 different papers through the automated filtering system used by the open access preprint server "arXiv" to classify papers and implement quality control barriers. The exercise was carried out in order to assess whether these highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art filters can distinguish between papers that are controversial or have gone past their "sell-by date," and otherwise normal papers. We conclude that not even the arXiv filters, which are otherwise successful in filtering fringe-topic papers, can fully acquire "Domain-Specific Discrimination" and thus distinguish technical papers that are taken seriously by an expert community from those that are not. Finally, we discuss the implications this has for citizen and policy-maker engagement with the Primary Source Knowledge of a technical domain.
-
Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015)
0.02
0.020674193 = product of:
0.041348387 = sum of:
0.041348387 = product of:
0.08269677 = sum of:
0.08269677 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08269677 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 4.2015 17:22:03
-
Pinfield, S.; Salter, J.; Bath, P.A.; Hubbard, B.; Millington, P.; Anders, J.H.S.; Hussain, A.: Open-access repositories worldwide, 2005-2012 : past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities (2014)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=1542,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.
-
Pinfield, S.; Salter, J.; Bath, P.A.: ¬The "total cost of publication" in a hybrid open-access environment : institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions (2016)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=3016,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the "total cost of publication" (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007-2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing ("Gold" OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, "hybrid" subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large "traditional" commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).
-
Spezi, V.; Wakeling, S.; Pinfield, S.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Willett, P.: Open-access mega-journals : the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? a review (2017)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.
-
Rowley, J.; Johnson, F.; Sbaffi, L.; Frass, W.; Devine, E.: Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals (2017)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.
-
Wakeling, S.; Spezi, V.; Fry, J.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Willett, P.: Academic communities : the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication (2019)
0.02
0.02019547 = product of:
0.04039094 = sum of:
0.04039094 = product of:
0.08078188 = sum of:
0.08078188 = weight(_text_:policy in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08078188 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2727254 = queryWeight, product of:
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.
-
Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017)
0.01
0.013782796 = product of:
0.027565593 = sum of:
0.027565593 = product of:
0.055131186 = sum of:
0.055131186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055131186 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9.10.2017 15:48:22
-
Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019)
0.01
0.012059947 = product of:
0.024119893 = sum of:
0.024119893 = product of:
0.048239786 = sum of:
0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048239786 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.01
0.012059947 = product of:
0.024119893 = sum of:
0.024119893 = product of:
0.048239786 = sum of:
0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048239786 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
-
Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018)
0.01
0.012059947 = product of:
0.024119893 = sum of:
0.024119893 = product of:
0.048239786 = sum of:
0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048239786 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:39
-
Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018)
0.01
0.012059947 = product of:
0.024119893 = sum of:
0.024119893 = product of:
0.048239786 = sum of:
0.048239786 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048239786 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4443, 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=4443)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:52
-
Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019)
0.01
0.010337097 = product of:
0.020674193 = sum of:
0.020674193 = product of:
0.041348387 = sum of:
0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041348387 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
-
Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019)
0.01
0.010337097 = product of:
0.020674193 = sum of:
0.020674193 = product of:
0.041348387 = sum of:
0.041348387 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041348387 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 1.2020 13:22:34
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.01
0.008614248 = product of:
0.017228495 = sum of:
0.017228495 = product of:
0.03445699 = sum of:
0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03445699 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.008614248 = product of:
0.017228495 = sum of:
0.017228495 = product of:
0.03445699 = sum of:
0.03445699 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03445699 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1781178 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05086421 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
