Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.09925283 = product of:
  0.24813206 = sum of:
    0.23073404 = weight(_text_:policy in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23073404 = score(doc=4339,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        1.0053437 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
    0.017398031 = product of:
      0.034796063 = sum of:
        0.034796063 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034796063 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper considers the need for a more systematic and critical approach to the academic study of information policy at national and international level. It reviews the complex, multifaceted nature of large-scale information policy problems and considers some of the main sources of confusion in the journal literature. It is argued that while information policy has been largey technology-driven, the consideration of information policy has, for historical reasons, typically been discipline-bounded. This has contributed to a fragmentation of research effort and a lack of consensus on the most appropriate home discipline for the study of information policy. In the search for a more critical scientific understanding of information policy issues, a brief review is made of the strenghts, limitations and applicability of the broad theoretical and methodological approaches which have been adopted, often implicitly, by writers reporting in the library and information science literature. The paper concludes with a consideration of some desirable characteristics for the design of information policy studies

Source

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

0.050103087 = product of:
  0.12525772 = sum of:
    0.10496002 = weight(_text_:great in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10496002 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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)
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=730,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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

0.028259037 = product of:
  0.14129518 = sum of:
    0.14129518 = weight(_text_:policy in 685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14129518 = score(doc=685,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.6156448 = fieldWeight in 685, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=685)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper provides a high-level overview of some of the main research themes and preoccupations that are reported in this special ciber issue of Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives. The research activities of ciber are drawn together in the quest for a better understanding of the policy implications of large-scale knowledge production systems against the backdrop of profound technical change, uncertainty over business models, and new forms of consumer behaviour. The paper presents a series of conceptual frameworks that aim to contextualise ciber's work in bibliometrics, cybermetrics, research evaluation, scholarly communication, user studies, publishing strategies and policy analysis. The transparency that metrics can bring to the evaluation debate and the pivotal role of human information behaviour in determining those metrics, are discussed.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=1911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = 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.

0.013596135 = product of:
  0.06798068 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=5587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 5587, 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=5587)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.

0.0034796062 = product of:
  0.017398031 = sum of:
    0.017398031 = product of:
      0.034796063 = sum of:
        0.034796063 = weight(_text_:22 in 2680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034796063 = score(doc=2680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = 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