Search (603 results, page 1 of 31)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.08 
    0.079340845 = sum of:
  0.06930531 = product of:
    0.20791592 = sum of:
      0.20791592 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20791592 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.44393432 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.010035537 = product of:
    0.020071074 = sum of:
      0.020071074 = weight(_text_:science in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020071074 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  2. Hartel, J.: ¬The red thread of information (2020) 0.05 
    0.04784278 = product of:
  0.09568556 = sum of:
    0.09568556 = sum of:
      0.060213223 = weight(_text_:science in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060213223 = score(doc=5839,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.4365477 = fieldWeight in 5839, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5839)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 5839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=5839,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5839, 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=5839)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose In The Invisible Substrate of Information Science, a landmark article about the discipline of information science, Marcia J. Bates wrote that ".we are always looking for the red thread of information in the social texture of people's lives" (1999a, p. 1048). To sharpen our understanding of information science and to elaborate Bates' idea, the work at hand answers the question: Just what does the red thread of information entail? Design/methodology/approach Through a close reading of Bates' oeuvre and by applying concepts from the reference literature of information science, nine composite entities that qualify as the red thread of information are identified, elaborated, and related to existing concepts in the information science literature. In the spirit of a scientist-poet (White, 1999), several playful metaphors related to the color red are employed. Findings Bates' red thread of information entails: terms, genres, literatures, classification systems, scholarly communication, information retrieval, information experience, information institutions, and information policy. This same constellation of phenomena can be found in resonant visions of information science, namely, domain analysis (Hjørland, 2002), ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999), and social epistemology (Shera, 1968). Research limitations/implications With the vital vermilion filament in clear view, newcomers can more easily engage the material, conceptual, and social machinery of information science, and specialists are reminded of what constitutes information science as a whole. Future researchers and scientist-poets may wish to supplement the nine composite entities with additional, emergent information phenomena. Originality/value Though the explication of information science that follows is relatively orthodox and time-bound, the paper offers an imaginative, accessible, yet technically precise way of understanding the field.
    Date
    30. 4.2020 21:03:22
  3. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.04 
    0.044699986 = product of:
  0.08939997 = sum of:
    0.08939997 = sum of:
      0.0397387 = weight(_text_:science in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0397387 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.04966127 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04966127 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
    Object
    Web of Science
  4. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.04 
    0.044699986 = product of:
  0.08939997 = sum of:
    0.08939997 = sum of:
      0.0397387 = weight(_text_:science in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0397387 = score(doc=547,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
      0.04966127 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04966127 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.702-707
  5. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.04 
    0.044287704 = product of:
  0.08857541 = sum of:
    0.08857541 = sum of:
      0.053103074 = weight(_text_:science in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053103074 = score(doc=992,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.38499892 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.745-758
  6. Vakkari, P.; Järvelin, K.; Chang, Y.-W.: ¬The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995-2015 (2023) 0.04 
    0.042318113 = product of:
  0.08463623 = sum of:
    0.08463623 = sum of:
      0.04916389 = weight(_text_:science in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04916389 = score(doc=998,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 998, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=998)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 998, 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=998)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross-sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706-1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:15:06
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.811-827
  7. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.04 
    0.041583184 = product of:
  0.08316637 = sum of:
    0.08316637 = product of:
      0.2494991 = sum of:
        0.2494991 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2494991 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44393432 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  8. Wu, P.F.: Veni, vidi, vici? : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.04 
    0.03888039 = product of:
  0.07776078 = sum of:
    0.07776078 = sum of:
      0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028099505 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
      0.04966127 = weight(_text_:22 in 896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04966127 = score(doc=896,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 896, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=896)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:33:53
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.145-149
  9. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.04 
    0.03888039 = product of:
  0.07776078 = sum of:
    0.07776078 = sum of:
      0.028099505 = weight(_text_:science in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028099505 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
      0.04966127 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04966127 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.866-878
  10. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.04 
    0.038314275 = product of:
  0.07662855 = sum of:
    0.07662855 = sum of:
      0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034061745 = score(doc=351,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, 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=351)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 9.2021 13:22:27
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.10, S.1285-1294
  11. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.04 
    0.038314275 = product of:
  0.07662855 = sum of:
    0.07662855 = sum of:
      0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034061745 = score(doc=886,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, 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=886)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.219-233
  12. Ma, L.: Information, platformized (2023) 0.04 
    0.038314275 = product of:
  0.07662855 = sum of:
    0.07662855 = sum of:
      0.034061745 = weight(_text_:science in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034061745 = score(doc=888,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 888, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=888)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=888,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 888, 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=888)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scholarly publications are often regarded as "information" by default. They are collected, organized, preserved, and made accessible as knowledge records. However, the instances of article retraction, misconduct and malpractices of researchers and the replication crisis have raised concerns about the informativeness and evidential qualities of information. Among many factors, knowledge production has moved away from "normal science" under the systemic influences of platformization involving the datafication and commodification of scholarly articles, research profiles and research activities. This article aims to understand the platformization of information by examining how research practices and knowledge production are steered by market and platform mechanisms in four ways: (a) ownership of information; (b) metrics for sale; (c) relevance by metrics, and (d) market-based competition. In conclusion, the article argues that information is platformized when platforms hold the dominating power in determining what kinds of information can be disseminated and rewarded and when informativeness is decoupled from the normative agreement or consensus co-constructed and co-determined in an open and public discourse.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 19:01:47
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.273-282
  13. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.04 
    0.03780724 = product of:
  0.07561448 = sum of:
    0.07561448 = sum of:
      0.04014215 = weight(_text_:science in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04014215 = score(doc=950,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, 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=950)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.
    Date
    22. 4.2023 19:27:56
  14. Aspray, W.; Aspray, P.: Does technology really outpace policy, and does it matter? : a primer for technical experts and others (2023) 0.04 
    0.03780724 = product of:
  0.07561448 = sum of:
    0.07561448 = sum of:
      0.04014215 = weight(_text_:science in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04014215 = score(doc=1017,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1017, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1017)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 1017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=1017,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1017, 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=1017)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper reconsiders the outpacing argument, the belief that changes in law and other means of regulation cannot keep pace with recent changes in technology. We focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in and of themselves as well as applied in computer science, telecommunications, health, finance, and other applications, but our argument applies also in rapidly developing technological fields such as environmental science, materials science, and genetic engineering. First, we discuss why the outpacing argument is so closely associated with information and computing technologies. We then outline 12 arguments that support the outpacing argument, by pointing to some particular weaknesses of policy making, using the United States as the primary example. Then arguing in the opposite direction, we present 4 brief and 3 more extended criticisms of the outpacing thesis. The paper's final section responds to calls within the technical community for greater engagement of policy and ethical concerns and reviews the paper's major arguments. While the paper focuses on ICTs and policy making in the United States, our critique of the outpacing argument and our exploration of its complex character are of utility to actors in other political contexts and in other technical fields.
    Date
    22. 7.2023 13:28:28
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.885-904
  15. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.04 
    0.035430167 = product of:
  0.070860334 = sum of:
    0.070860334 = sum of:
      0.04248246 = weight(_text_:science in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04248246 = score(doc=179,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.30799913 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
      0.02837787 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02837787 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, 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=179)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Showcasing Doctoral Research in Information Science.
  16. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.04 
    0.03511823 = product of:
  0.07023646 = sum of:
    0.07023646 = sum of:
      0.034764122 = weight(_text_:science in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034764122 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, 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=313)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.8, S.1039-1058
  17. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.04 
    0.03511823 = product of:
  0.07023646 = sum of:
    0.07023646 = sum of:
      0.034764122 = weight(_text_:science in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034764122 = score(doc=916,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.035472337 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035472337 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.402-414
  18. Dietz, K.: en.wikipedia.org > 6 Mio. Artikel (2020) 0.03 
    0.034652654 = product of:
  0.06930531 = sum of:
    0.06930531 = product of:
      0.20791592 = sum of:
        0.20791592 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20791592 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44393432 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052363027 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."
  19. Geras, A.; Siudem, G.; Gagolewski, M.: Should we introduce a dislike button for academic articles? (2020) 0.03 
    0.033326045 = product of:
  0.06665209 = sum of:
    0.06665209 = sum of:
      0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024085289 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5620, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5620)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 5620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=5620,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5620, 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=5620)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 1.2020 18:10:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.2, S.221-229
  20. Ma, Y.: Relatedness and compatibility : the concept of privacy in Mandarin Chinese and American English corpora (2023) 0.03 
    0.033326045 = product of:
  0.06665209 = sum of:
    0.06665209 = sum of:
      0.024085289 = weight(_text_:science in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024085289 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13793045 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 887, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=887)
      0.042566802 = weight(_text_:22 in 887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042566802 = score(doc=887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1833664 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052363027 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 887, 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=887)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:59:40
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.249-272

Authors

Languages

  • e 552
  • d 49
  • pt 2
  • m 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 581
  • el 49
  • m 12
  • p 4
  • s 4
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications