Search (191 results, page 1 of 10)

0.054925613 = product of:
  0.109851226 = sum of:
    0.109851226 = sum of:
      0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053188704 = score(doc=6685,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 6685, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6685)
      0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056662526 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6685, 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=6685)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Articles contributed to a report of the results of project ELVYN, sponsored by the British Library Research and Development Department and conducted by Loughborough University, in conjunction with the Institute of Physics Publishing and SCONUL, to test the practicalities and potential pitfalls of publishers delivering periodicals electronically to libraries. Presents the results and sets them in the context of current developments in electronic publishing

Date

1. 3.1997 18:22:00

Series

British Library research series

0.048802964 = product of:
  0.09760593 = sum of:
    0.09760593 = sum of:
      0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06219185 = score(doc=2593,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

Research Papers in Economics
Social Science Research Network

0.04713631 = product of:
  0.09427262 = sum of:
    0.09427262 = sum of:
      0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037610095 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056662526 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

Abstract

Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal

Date

22. 2.1999 16:56:06

0.04713631 = product of:
  0.09427262 = sum of:
    0.09427262 = sum of:
      0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037610095 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
      0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056662526 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

Abstract

Recent years have seen a proliferation of electronic journals across academic disciplines. Electronic journals offer many advantages to multiple constituencies, however, their acceptance by faculty and university promotion and tenure committees is unclear. This research examines perceptions of faculty and promotion and tenure committee members regarding the perceived prestige and legitimacy of electronic journals as an outlet for scholarly communication

Date

22. 5.1999 14:43:47

0.041213352 = product of:
  0.082426704 = sum of:
    0.082426704 = sum of:
      0.047012623 = weight(_text_:research in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047012623 = score(doc=4410,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.040759984 = product of:
  0.08151997 = sum of:
    0.08151997 = sum of:
      0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053188704 = score(doc=3769,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028331263 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

Research / Methodology

Subject

Research / Methodology

0.03541408 = product of:
  0.07082816 = sum of:
    0.07082816 = product of:
      0.14165632 = sum of:
        0.14165632 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14165632 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 3204, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=3204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

RRZK-Kompass. 1995, Nr.65, S.21-22

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=3022,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3022, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3022)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 3022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=3022,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3022, 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=3022)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Zentrale Erwerbung von wissenschaftlichen Informationsressourcen im Netz der virtuellen Hybridbibliothek der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft »Excellent Information Services for Excellent Research« ist das Motto der Anfang 2007 gegründeten Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL). Diese ambitionierte Leitlinie würdigt die Relevanz eines modernen wissenschaftlichen Informationsmanagements für eine exzellente Spitzenforschung. Mit Gründung der MPDL wurde in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) ein entscheidender Schritt zur zentralen Unterstützung eines bisher weitgehend dezentralen Informationsversorgungsnetzes gegangen. Die Entscheidung zu einer Kombination aus zentraler und dezentraler Informationsversorgung trägt den Veränderungen Rechnung, die sich durch die Möglichkeiten der digitalen Welt ergeben haben. Intention der Neugründung ist jedoch nicht, ein unter der Prämisse der Institutsautonomie etabliertes, wohl durchdachtes Literatur- und Informationsversorgungssystem sukzessive durch eine zentrale Einheit abzulösen, sondern gemäß der Maxime der Subsidiarität Stärken von dezentralen und von zentralen Einheiten zu einem effizienten Gesamtsystem zu ergänzen. Der vorliegende Artikel skizziert das Netz der Informationsversorgung in der MPG mit dem Schwerpunkt auf der Versorgung mit elektronischen Medien des institutsübergreifenden Bedarfs. Dieser Schwerpunkt kennzeichnet eines der Hauptarbeitsfelder der MPDL, deren weitere Services und Arbeitsfelder kontextgebunden und ausgewählt vorgestellt werden sollen?

Date

22. 7.2009 13:40:29

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.032970678 = product of:
  0.065941356 = sum of:
    0.065941356 = sum of:
      0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037610095 = score(doc=4631,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028331263 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.030049844 = product of:
  0.060099687 = sum of:
    0.060099687 = product of:
      0.120199375 = sum of:
        0.120199375 = weight(_text_:22 in 4823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120199375 = score(doc=4823,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

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

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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(1/2)

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.

0.029460195 = product of:
  0.05892039 = sum of:
    0.05892039 = sum of:
      0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023506312 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

0.028331263 = product of:
  0.056662526 = sum of:
    0.056662526 = product of:
      0.11332505 = sum of:
        0.11332505 = weight(_text_:22 in 5919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11332505 = score(doc=5919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.028331263 = product of:
  0.056662526 = sum of:
    0.056662526 = product of:
      0.11332505 = sum of:
        0.11332505 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11332505 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.028331263 = product of:
  0.056662526 = sum of:
    0.056662526 = product of:
      0.11332505 = sum of:
        0.11332505 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11332505 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.025041535 = product of:
  0.05008307 = sum of:
    0.05008307 = product of:
      0.10016614 = sum of:
        0.10016614 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10016614 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

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