Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

0.046146326 = product of:
  0.09229265 = sum of:
    0.07973984 = weight(_text_:social in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07973984 = score(doc=4631,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43166807 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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(1/2)
  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.

Content

Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03661915 = product of:
  0.0732383 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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

0.0321699 = product of:
  0.1286796 = sum of:
    0.1286796 = weight(_text_:social in 4987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1286796 = score(doc=4987,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.69660133 = fieldWeight in 4987, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4987)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recently, social media has become a potentially new way for scholarly journals to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Scholarly journals have started promoting their research articles to a wide range of audiences via social media platforms. This article aims to investigate the social media presence of scholarly journals across disciplines. We extracted journals from Web of Science and searched for the social media presence of these journals on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant metrics and content relating to the journals' social media accounts were also crawled for data analysis. From our results, the social media presence of scholarly journals lies between 7.1% and 14.2% across disciplines; and it has shown a steady increase in the last decade. The popularity of scholarly journals on social media is distinct across disciplines. Further, we investigated whether social media metrics of journals can predict the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). We found that the number of followers and disciplines have significant effects on the JIF. In addition, a word co-occurrence network analysis was also conducted to identify popular topics discussed by scholarly journals on social media platforms. Finally, we highlight challenges and issues faced in this study and discuss future research directions.

0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There is an "information burst" going on in our world. Therefore we think more about the role of information in modern society and in our personal life. The political waves of the peaceful revolutionary process virtually start to erase the borders of the countries drawn on the maps. A little more than ten years ago we had not even a concept for "Belarusian-German relations", because both countries "the new united Germany and the Republic of Belarus did not exist on the maps of the world. Today the communication between our countries covers all aspects of public life "culture" science and education. We have laid a foundation for our economic and cultural cooperation. We already have had some experience in the joint solution of internal and international problems. And "what is most striking" the warm human contacts of the people consolidate and accelerate the process of mutual understanding between our countries and broaden our view. Today no country in the world can yield their citizens more freedom of choice than the "state" of the Internet. The people, freely migrating in a boundless information space, know how to use the invaluable treasures of human thought and creatively increase the achievements of mankind by intellectual work. These people become the pride of every country in our time. In educating, shaping and supporting such persons we see a new social role of the libraries. It is clearly visible that libraries turn into modern information centers. The introduction of new information know-how and the access to electronic information by means of an electronic library satisfy the increasing need of effective and comprehensive information. All steps of the work with documents (publication "search" delivery) are automated. The fast electronic delivery of documents is promoted by the growth of global information networks, by the increase of transfer rates of dates" by the capability of online search in the electronic catalogues and databases connected with the automated systems of the ordering of copies, by the technical equipment and software of scanning and recognition of the text.

0.026733 = product of:
  0.053466 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Grey Literature and Open Access publications have the potential to become the basis of new types of scientific publications, in which scientific discourse and collaboration can play a central role in the dissemination of knowledge, due to their machine-readable format and electronic availability. With advances in cyber science and e-(Social) Science, an increasing number of scientific publications are required to be shared with different group members or even within communities in virtual reading environments. However, the most often used format for publishing articles on the web is still the Adobe PDF format, which limits the extent to which readers of an article can interact with online content and within their browser environment. This not only separates the formal communication - the article itself - from the informal communication about a publication - the discussion about the article - but also fails to link the different threads of communications which might appear in parallel at different locations in the scientific community as a whole. Analysis of around 30 web sites where different ways for presenting formal and informal communications were conducted shows in the identification of several prototypes of media combinations which were then evaluated against human factor aspects (distance between related information, arrangement of related information etc). Based on this evaluation we concluded that at the time of analysis, no model exist for directly integrating formal and informal communication to a single media, allowing readers of publications to directly discuss within the publication, e.g. to extend the publication with their input directly at the paragraph they wanted to comment. Therefore, a new publishing medium is necessary to fulfil the gap between the formal and informal communication, facilitating and engaging academic readers' active participating in the online scientific discourse. We have developed an online discussion service, which allows interactive features for annotation directly available at the point in the publication to which the comment refers to. Besides the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of discourse across portals and communities we approach at the same time to create a new basis for research in scientific discourse, networking and collaboration. This is supported by linking from the individual article to other publications or information items in digital libraries.

0.025098871 = product of:
  0.100395486 = sum of:
    0.100395486 = sum of:
      0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273703 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
      0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03765845 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This volume is the first book coherently summarizing the current issues in digital libraries research, design and management. It presents, in a homogeneous way, thoroughly revised versions of 15 papers accepted for the First International Workshop on Digital Libraries, DL '94, held at Rutgers University in May 1994; in addition there are two introductory chapters provided by the volume editors, as well as a comprehensive bibliography listing 262 entries. Besides introductory aspects, the topics addressed are administration and management, information retrieval and hypertext, classification and indexing, and prototypes and applications. The volume is intended for researchers and design professionals in the field, as well as for experts from libraries administration and scientific publishing.

Date

22. 1.1996 18:26:45

0.022410752 = product of:
  0.08964301 = sum of:
    0.08964301 = product of:
      0.17928602 = sum of:
        0.17928602 = weight(_text_:aspects in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17928602 = score(doc=526,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.8562577 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Internet publishing / Economic aspects
Intellectual property / Economic aspects
Technological innovations / Economic aspects

Subject

Internet publishing / Economic aspects
Intellectual property / Economic aspects
Technological innovations / Economic aspects

0.016276827 = product of:
  0.06510731 = sum of:
    0.06510731 = weight(_text_:social in 8026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06510731 = score(doc=8026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 8026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8026)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=4399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 4399, 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=4399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the social and economic factors involved in the implementation of the electronic library. Discusses the ways in which the library metaphor may be restricitng thinking and the development of systems that may approach more closely the ideals of scholarly communication. Such a system not only necessitates new models for the concepts of periodical, library and publishing, but also new interpersonal and institutional practices, and a new basis for the economic conditions associated with communication. Electronic communication systems offer the possibility not only of disseminating information over networks but of interpersonal communication among collaborating authors or producers and, perhaps more important, between author, reader, user or consumer of the information. For example, electronic mail forms included in electronic periodicals along data discussed in the articles could lead to the evolution of electronic periodicals into electronic seminars or electronic common rooms. Poses the question of whether commercial publishers will be able to find a role to play in this process and fails to suggest an answer

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=3155,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 3155, 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=3155)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the rapid development of social media, spontaneously user-generated content such as tweets and forum posts have become important materials for tracking people's opinions and sentiments online. A major hurdle for current state-of-the-art automatic methods for sentiment analysis is the fact that human communication often involves the use of sarcasm or irony, where the author means the opposite of what she/he says. Sarcasm transforms the polarity of an apparently positive or negative utterance into its opposite. Lack of naturally occurring utterances labeled for sarcasm is one of the key problems for the development of machine-learning methods for sarcasm detection. We report on a method for constructing a corpus of sarcastic Twitter messages in which determination of the sarcasm of each message has been made by its author. We use this reliable corpus to compare sarcastic utterances in Twitter to utterances that express positive or negative attitudes without sarcasm. We investigate the impact of lexical and pragmatic factors on machine-learning effectiveness for identifying sarcastic utterances and we compare the performance of machine-learning techniques and human judges on this task.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=3226,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 3226, 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=3226)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=3768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 3768, 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=3768)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=11,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 11, 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=11)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

0.0130702155 = product of:
  0.052280862 = sum of:
    0.052280862 = product of:
      0.104561724 = sum of:
        0.104561724 = weight(_text_:aspects in 7374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104561724 = score(doc=7374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.4993796 = fieldWeight in 7374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

An exhaustive presentation of all aspects written by ther father of SGML

0.0130702155 = product of:
  0.052280862 = sum of:
    0.052280862 = product of:
      0.104561724 = sum of:
        0.104561724 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104561724 = score(doc=2884,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.4993796 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.012552816 = product of:
  0.050211266 = sum of:
    0.050211266 = product of:
      0.10042253 = sum of:
        0.10042253 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10042253 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Infodoc. 19(1993) H.3, S.20-22

0.012552816 = product of:
  0.050211266 = sum of:
    0.050211266 = product of:
      0.10042253 = sum of:
        0.10042253 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10042253 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=1018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1018, 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=1018)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines the history of scientific communication and the complex roles traditionally played by scientific periodicals in an attempt to understand how and when these periodicals are likely to incorporate new technologies and forms of information communication. Concludes that: enabling technologies may not be sufficient to bring about major changes in communication form; new forms of information communication are slow to develop and to take full advantage of new capabilities; periodicals and books took years to develop and the same shoul be expected of electronic periodicals; authors must have confidence in the ability of electronic periodicals to serve as public knowledge; the central function of periodicals is fully embedded in the scientific process; the information content carried in the structure of the current system must not be lost (at least until technology can provide alternatives); and electronic periodicals must be able to serve the social needs of subdisciplines of scholars

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 4989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=4989,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 4989, 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=4989)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Open data movement advocates support to public authorities by making available to society the public information they manage. The data released are identified as open government data and the creation of open data portals supports their commitment through open government policies. The worldwide increase of the open data publication is making more necessary the modelling of its impact on society. This research analyses the process of open data publication starting in the internal systems of the organization and reaching the actual reuse of data in reuser's ecosystem surrounding the open data portals. Different reuser's profiles are identified and described within the reuser's ecosystem. Some key elements of the publication process are presented in order to guarantee sustainability of open data initiatives and to further analyse the social and economic impact.