Search (110 results, page 2 of 6)

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 3928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=3928,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 3928, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wie sind Forschungsbericht, Institutional Repository und die Interessen des wissenschaftlichen Autors vereinbar? - Das Projekt PUMA. An den Hochschulen kommt der Förderung einer zeitgemäßen Publikationsumgebung steigende Bedeutung zu. Die Interessenlage ist vielschichtig. Autoren möchten eine komfortable Arbeitsumgebung, die Hochschulpräsidien benötigen Forschungsinformationen und die Bibliotheken wollen passende Informationsinfrastrukturen bereitzustellen. An der Universität Kassel wurde ausgehend vom Bedürfnis des wissenschaftlichen Autors in einem Pilotprojekt (PUMA) versucht, diese Interessen zu einem Publikationsmanagement zu vereinbaren. Für den Autor wird in PUMA bei deutlich geringerem Einsatz ein erheblicher Mehrwert dadurch generiert, dass bei nur einmaligen Anmelden mit dem Bibliotheks-Account ein Social-Bookmarking-System (BibSonomy) zur Verfügung steht, automatisiert Informationen an den Forschungsbericht weitergegeben, Metadaten und Dateien in Repositorien gestellt und Schriftenverzeichnisse (Curriculum Vitae) für Homepages etc. erstellt werden können.

0.013314273 = product of:
  0.053257093 = sum of:
    0.053257093 = product of:
      0.106514186 = sum of:
        0.106514186 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106514186 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4823, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22
18. 6.2000 9:11:22

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 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10042253 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, 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=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.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.

0.011095227 = product of:
  0.044380907 = sum of:
    0.044380907 = product of:
      0.088761814 = sum of:
        0.088761814 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088761814 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 8074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=8074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 8074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Börsenblatt. Nr.50 vom 24.6.1994, S.19-22

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 6664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=6664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.181-247

0.010983714 = product of:
  0.043934856 = sum of:
    0.043934856 = product of:
      0.08786971 = sum of:
        0.08786971 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08786971 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 2.1996 22:34:46

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=794,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 794, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a pilot project at the UK Institute of Physics to investigate the potential use of Super JANET as a vehicle for the 'true' electronic journal. Aspects being studied are: identification of the articles required, by browsing existing collections of material; manipulation of the sub-article elements such as figures, texts and citations, both within a given article and between articles and other services; and exploration of the transfer and display of colour images and half-tones. The types of software under investigation include: relational databases with text-handling capabilities; free-text databases; presentation software; hypertext and browsing software; multimedia approaches; and conversion tools

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=1105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dealing with some of the effects of multimedia for those involved in the conventional publishing chain. Among the aspects dealt with are the rival formats for distribution and playback; how publishers are apporaching multimedia, and software companies approaching publishing; multimedia music; ownership copyright; and networking implications. Notes the role of SuperJANET in the UK in the area of multimedia networking, and the prospect of publishers beginning to use networks as a way of publishing and distributing their products

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 7515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=7515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 7515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Electronic texts offer new ways to store, retrieve, update, and cross-link information. Hypermedia documents require new levels of organization and strict discipline from authors, editors, and managers. This book provides a step-by step guide to all aspects of hypermedia development, from strategic decision-making to editing formats and production methods

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to report on a large-scale survey that was carried out to assess academic users' awareness, perceptions and existing levels of use of e-books. The survey also seeks to find out about the purposes to which electronic books were put, and to obtain an understanding of the most effective library marketing and communication channels. Design/methodology/approach - An e-mail invitation to participate in the survey was distributed to all UCL staff and students (approximately 27,000) in November 2006, and 1,818 completions were received, an effective response rate of at least 6.7 per cent. Statistical analyses were carried out on the data using Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Findings - The survey findings point to various ways in which user uptake and acceptance of e-books may be encouraged. Book discovery behaviour, a key issue for publishers and librarians in both print and electronic environments, emerges as a critical focus for service delivery and enhancement. Originality/value - The survey is part of an action research project, CIBER's SuperBook, that will further investigate the issues raised in this initial benchmarking survey using deep log analysis and qualitative methods. The paper partly fills the gap in the literature on e-books which has mainly focused on usage and not the users.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - By tracking the information-seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings - The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e-collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value - The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=3597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3597)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.