Search (218 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.06 
    0.05640889 = product of:
  0.11281778 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.08749455 = sum of:
      0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.055848222 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031646326 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = 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(2/4)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628
  2. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.05 
    0.051413547 = product of:
  0.102827094 = sum of:
    0.014324983 = weight(_text_:science in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014324983 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.08850211 = sum of:
      0.06318505 = weight(_text_:history in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06318505 = score(doc=4631,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.2907489 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02531706 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, 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=4631)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  3. Olivieri, R.: Academic publishing in transition : the academic publishers response (1995) 0.03 
    0.03372939 = product of:
  0.06745878 = sum of:
    0.035812456 = weight(_text_:science in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035812456 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
    0.031646326 = product of:
      0.06329265 = sum of:
        0.06329265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06329265 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, 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=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the changing forces of demand, supply and technical change in the field of academic publishing. Covers electronic publishing; the UnCover document delivery service from B.H. Blackwell; the work of Blackwell Science and Blackwell Publishers and electronic pilot studies
    Source
    IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22
  4. Doty, P.; Bishop, A.P.: ¬The National Information Infrastructure and electronic publishing : a reflective essay (1994) 0.03 
    0.03208124 = product of:
  0.06416248 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
    0.039093755 = product of:
      0.07818751 = sum of:
        0.07818751 = weight(_text_:history in 1058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07818751 = score(doc=1058,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 1058, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The US government has been active in the establishment of national and other levels of networking to connect various kinds of persons and groups throughout the country. Briefly examines the history and present state of federal initiatives in electronic networking (particularly the National Information Infrastructure (NII)) and the NREN. Looks at current trends and issues for electronic publishing that come from this federal activity; and identifies topics of fundamental interest to, and with major implications for, national policy that arise from electronic publishing. Explores electronic publishing in the context of federal networking initiatives and considers the implications of the growth of electronic publishing for national policy
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.10, S.785-799
  5. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.03 
    0.02869844 = product of:
  0.05739688 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
    0.039490655 = product of:
      0.07898131 = sum of:
        0.07898131 = weight(_text_:history in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07898131 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3634361 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.856-866
  6. Harter, S.P.: Scholarly communication and electronic journals : an impact study (1998) 0.03 
    0.026983513 = product of:
  0.053967025 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 2.1999 16:56:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.507-516
  7. Speier, C.; Palmer, J.; Wren, D.; Hahn, S.: Faculty perceptions of electronic journals as scholarly communication : a question of prestige and legitimacy (1999) 0.03 
    0.026983513 = product of:
  0.053967025 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
    0.02531706 = product of:
      0.05063412 = sum of:
        0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05063412 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3674, 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=3674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 14:43:47
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.6, S.537-543
  8. FIZ Karlsruhe unterstützt gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbund (VZG) bei der Einführung der ESCIDOC-Infrastruktur (2008) 0.03 
    0.025279436 = product of:
  0.050558873 = sum of:
    0.037900344 = weight(_text_:science in 1810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037900344 = score(doc=1810,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.30799913 = fieldWeight in 1810, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1810)
    0.01265853 = product of:
      0.02531706 = sum of:
        0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 1810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531706 = score(doc=1810,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1810, 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=1810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    "Die Verbundzentrale des Gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbundes (VZG) und FIZ Karlsruhe haben beschlossen, zu kooperieren und gemeinsam einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Aufbau der nationalen E-Science-Infrastruktur zu leisten. E-Science steht für "enhanced science" - die neue Form wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens. E-Science folgt der Vision, das Wissen der Wissenschaft global zu vernetzen. Voraussetzung dafür ist eine innovative, nachhaltige Infrastruktur, sowohl technisch als auch organisatorisch. Die VZG verbessert mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) im Rahmen des Projekts "Nationallizenzen" die Versorgung mit elektronischer Fachinformation an deutschen Hochschulen, Forschungseinrichtungen und wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken. Jetzt stellt die VZG ihr System für das Hosting von digitalen Inhalten auf eine neue technische Basis: die eSciDoc-Infrastruktur. Deren Kern bildet das international renommierte Repository-System Fedora. Die eSciDoc-Infrastruktur bietet durch zusätzliche Dienste, fertige Datenmodelle und vereinfachte Schnittstellen erhebliche Mehrwerte. Die VZG hat sich nach einer umfänglichen Evaluation der Software und der zugrunde liegenden Konzepte für das System entschieden. FIZ Karlsruhe wird die VZG bei dessen Einführung beraten.
    Zum Vertragsabschluss erklärt Sabine Brünger-Weilandt, Geschäftsführerin von FIZ Karlsruhe: "Als wissenschaftlicher Dienstleister und eScidoc-Partner fühlen wir uns der Nachnutzung und Verbreitung des Systems verpflichtet. Die Kooperation mit der VZG bedeutet einen wichtigen Schritt in diesem Prozess. Damit können wir die VZG effektiv und kompetent dabei unterstützen, ihre Leistungen im Bibliotheksverbund noch besser zu erbringen und wertvolle Kulturgüter der Wissenschaft und Forschung digital verfügbar zu machen." Reiner Diedrichs, Direktor der Verbundzentrale, begründet die Entscheidung: "Die durchdachte Architektur, der flexible Umgang mit Metadaten sowie insbesondere die konsequente Verfolgung des Open-Source-Gedankens haben uns überzeugt. Die eSciDoc-Infrastruktur bietet eine solide Grundlage für die weitere Entwicklung unserer Dienstleistungen." FIZ Karlsruhe arbeitet bereits seit mehr als drei Jahren intensiv an E-Science-Lösungen. Im Projekt eSciDoc entwickeln FIZ Karlsruhe und die MaxPlanck-Gesellschaft (MPG) gemeinsam ein System für offene netzbasierte Zusammenarbeit, Kommunikation und Publikation in wissenschaftlichen Forschungsorganisationen. Aufbauend auf seinen längjährigen Erfahrungen im internationalen Informationstransfer und Wissensmanagement hat FIZ Karlsruhe seine Kompetenzen in Richtung zu E-Science erweitert. Über das neue Geschäftsfeld KnowEsis werden in dem komplexen und beratungsintensiven Umfeld von E-Science innovative Dienstleistungen angeboten. Dazu gehören Consulting, Schulung und kundenspezifische Entwicklungen ebenso wie Support sowohl für die eSciDoc-Infrastruktur als auch für das Repository-System Fedora."
    Date
    7. 4.2008 11:36:22
  9. Medelsohn, L.D.: Chemistry journals : the transition from paper to electronic with lessons for other disciplines (2003) 0.02 
    0.024687836 = product of:
  0.049375672 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=1871,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, 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=1871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Chemical information sciences-ranging from subjectspecific bibliometrics to sophisticated theoretical systems for modeling structures and reactions-have historically led in developing new technologies. Hundreds of papers are published or presented at conferences annually in this discipline. One of the more significant conferences at which important research has historically been presented is the Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information, an event jointly sponsored by the American Chemical Society, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and the Special Libraries Association and held every four years. Eight years ago, the theme of this conference was the chemist's workstation; papers were presented an developments enabling chemists to access and process a variety of different types of chemical information from their desktop or laboratory bench. Several of these papers were subsequently published as a Perspectives issue.
    Date
    19.10.2003 17:17:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1136-1137
  10. Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019) 0.02 
    0.024687836 = product of:
  0.049375672 = sum of:
    0.030387878 = weight(_text_:science in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030387878 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler propagieren die demokratische dezentrale Selbstorganisation der globalen Wissenschaftskommunikation als Blockchain. Bericht über die "1st international Conference on Blockchain for Science, Research and Knowledge Creation", Berlin, 5. und 6. November 2018. Sie wollen die Wissenschaftskommunikation und ihr Publikationswesen revolutionieren. Der Wissensaustausch soll ohne Barrieren fließen. Forschende sollen ihre Datensammlungen, Zwischenergebnisse und Fragen von Beginn des Forschungsprozesses an urheberrechtssicher direkt publizieren und diskutieren können; auch Fehlversuche und negative Ergebnisse. Sie haben ganz viel Enthusiasmus, frische Ideen und mit Blockchain ein neuartiges Datenverarbeitungskonzept, das mit dem bestehenden Internet als Transportfundament den weltweiten Datenverkehr unabhängig von zentralen Unternehmensplattformen möglich macht (zumindest technisch). Dieser kryptogesicherten Blockdatenverarbeitung mit verteilten Transaktionsregistern (sorry, es geht nicht kürzer) schreiben sie das Potential zu, in einem autonom geführten Netzwerk, in dem alle Teilnehmenden gleichberechtigt sind und miteinander agieren können, der Wissenschaft die Hoheit über ihren weltweiten Informationsaustausch geben zu können. Die Rede ist von der "Blockchain One Community", Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus verschiedenen Disziplinen und Ländern, die sich für eine "Blockchain for Science" engagieren. Die Kühnsten unter ihnen streben eine weltweite Wissenschaftskommunikation in demokratischer Selbstorganisation an. Blockchains nutzen kann, wer einen Internetzugang hat.
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
  11. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.02 
    0.023610573 = product of:
  0.047221147 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.022152426 = product of:
      0.04430485 = sum of:
        0.04430485 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430485 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = 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(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374
  12. Martin, K.; Quan-Haase, A.: Are e-books replacing print books? : tradition, serendipity, and opportunity in the adoption and use of e-books for historical research and teaching (2013) 0.02 
    0.02291517 = product of:
  0.04583034 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1016-1028
  13. Solomon, D.J.; Björk, B.-C.: Publication fees in open access publishing : sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2012) 0.02 
    0.02291517 = product of:
  0.04583034 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=754,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.98-107
  14. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.02 
    0.022345083 = product of:
  0.044690166 = sum of:
    0.032031637 = weight(_text_:science in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032031637 = score(doc=3769,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.26030678 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.01265853 = product of:
      0.02531706 = sum of:
        0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531706 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, 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=3769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The debate about access to scientific research raises questions about the current effectiveness of scholarly communication processes. This book explores, from an independent point of view, the current state of the STM publishing market, new publishing technologies and business models as well as the information habit of researchers, the politics of research funders, and the demand for scientific research as a public good. The book also investigates the democratisation of science including how the information needs of knowledge workers outside academia can be embraced in future.
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed
    LCSH
    Communication in science
    Science publishing
    Subject
    Communication in science
    Science publishing
  15. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.02 
    0.020573197 = product of:
  0.041146394 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = 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(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Object
    Social Science Research Network
  16. Digital libraries: current issues : Digital Libraries Workshop DL 94, Newark, NJ, May 19-20, 1994. Selected papers (1995) 0.02 
    0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1385, 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=1385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.1996 18:26:45
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.916
  17. Frandsen, T.F.; Wouters, P.: Turning working papers into journal articles : an exercise in microbibliometrics (2009) 0.02 
    0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, 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=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:59:25
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.728-739
  18. Oppenheim, C.: Electronic scholarly publishing and open access (2009) 0.02 
    0.020237632 = product of:
  0.040475264 = sum of:
    0.021487473 = weight(_text_:science in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021487473 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.018987793 = product of:
      0.037975587 = sum of:
        0.037975587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037975587 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    8. 7.2010 19:22:45
    Source
    Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  19. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.02 
    0.018735064 = product of:
  0.03747013 = sum of:
    0.0248116 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0248116 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.01265853 = product of:
      0.02531706 = sum of:
        0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531706 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
  20. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.02 
    0.016864695 = product of:
  0.03372939 = sum of:
    0.017906228 = weight(_text_:science in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017906228 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.015823163 = product of:
      0.031646326 = sum of:
        0.031646326 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031646326 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 156
  • d 61

Types

  • a 195
  • el 19
  • m 12
  • s 8
  • b 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications