Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.036396094 = product of:
  0.14558437 = sum of:
    0.14558437 = weight(_text_:social in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14558437 = score(doc=2749,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.7881145 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Structured abstracts have now become widespread in medical research journals. Considers whether or not such structured abstracts can be used effectively in social science journals. Reviews a a selection of studies to see if structured abstracts written for social science journals are more informative, easier to read and easier to search than their traditional equivalents. Results suggest that structured abstracts are appropriate for social science journals. Editors of social science journals should consider adopting structured abstracts

0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 4411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4411)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

Structured abstracts are abstracts which include subheadings such as: background, aims, participants methods and results. These are rapidly replacing traditional abstracts in medical periodicals, but the number and detail of the subheadings used varies, and there is a range of different typographic settings. Reviews a number of studies designed to investigate readers' preferences for different typographic settings and layout. Over 400 readers took part in the study: students; postgraduates; research workers and academics in the social sciences. The most preferred version emerged from the last of 3 studies and 2 additional studies were then carried out to determine preferences for the overall position and layout of this most preferred version on a A4 page. The most preferred version for the setting of the subheadings are printed in bold capital letters

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 3115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=3115,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 3115, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3115)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Detailed checklists and questionnaires have been used in the past to assess the quality of structured abstracts in the medical sciences. The aim of this article is to report the findings when a simpler checklist was used to evaluate the quality of 100 traditional abstracts published in 53 different social science journals. Most of these abstracts contained information about the aims, methods, and results of the studies. However, many did not report details about the sample sizes, ages, or sexes of the participants, or where the research was carried out. The correlation between the lengths of the abstracts and the amount of information present was 0.37 (p < .001), suggesting that word limits for abstracts may restrict the presence of key information to some extent. We conclude that authors can improve the quality of information in traditional abstracts in the social sciences by using the simple checklist provided in this article.

0.017264182 = product of:
  0.06905673 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=2383,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to explore the possibilities of extending the use of structured abstracts (which use subheadings such as background, aims, participants method, results, conclusions) of the type often found in biomedical periodicals; to test whether or not such structured abstracts are more easily searched, comprehended and recalled than abstracts set in the traditional manner; and to examine readers' preferences for different typographic settings for structured abstracts. Results indicated: that it is possible to produce structured abstracts for periodical articles in the social sciences; and that such abstracts may be easier to read, search and recall than abstracts presented in the traditional manner. Suggests that abstracts use 6 subheadings (background, aims, method, results, conclusions, and, optionally, comment) and recommends that these subheadings are conveyed in bold capital letters and, ideally, set apart from the main text by printer's rules

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=195)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reading and writing book reviews for learned journals plays an important part in academic life but little is known about how academics carry out these tasks. The aim of this research was to explore these activities with academics from the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. An electronic questionnaire was used to ascertain (a) how often the respondents read and wrote book reviews, (b) how useful they found them, and (c) what features they thought important in book reviews. Fifty-two academics in the arts, 53 in the social sciences, and 51 in the sciences replied. There were few disciplinary differences. Most respondents reported reading between one and five book reviews a month and writing between one and two a year. There was high overall agreement between what the respondents thought were important features of book reviews, but there were also wide individual differences between them. This agreement across the disciplines supports the notion that book reviews can be seen as an academic genre with measurable features. This has implications for how they are written, and how authors might be taught to write them better. A potential checklist for authors is suggested.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The number of authors collaborating to write scientific articles has been increasing steadily, and with this collaboration, other factors have also changed, such as the length of articles and the number of citations. However, little is known about potential discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs between single and collaborating authors. In this article, we ask whether multiauthor articles contain more tables and graphs than single-author articles, and we studied 5,180 recent articles published in six science and social sciences journals. We found that pairs and multiple authors used significantly more tables and graphs than single authors. Such findings indicate that there is a greater emphasis on the role of tables and graphs in collaborative writing, and we discuss some of the possible causes and implications of these findings.

0.007845511 = product of:
  0.031382043 = sum of:
    0.031382043 = product of:
      0.062764086 = sum of:
        0.062764086 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062764086 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356