Search (162 results, page 1 of 9)

0.1042887 = product of:
  0.26072174 = sum of:
    0.18603037 = weight(_text_:readable in 8516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18603037 = score(doc=8516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.67199206 = fieldWeight in 8516, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8516)
    0.074691355 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074691355 = score(doc=8516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 8516, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8516)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Rutgers Inventory of Machine-Readable Texts in the Humanities was established in 1983 as a reference tool to help avoid duplication of effort for scholars and teachers in the humanities who want to use electronic texts in their work. The Inventory catalogers follow AACR2 and use the MARC format to provide bibliographic information about texts in all fields of the humanities, in any language, anywhere in the world, through the RLIN database. This article describes the information in the Inventory and some unresolved issues in relation to bibliographic control of electronic texts in the humanities

0.0601341 = product of:
  0.3006705 = sum of:
    0.3006705 = weight(_text_:readable in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.3006705 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        1.0861032 = fieldWeight in 5929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5929)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.04210871 = product of:
  0.10527178 = sum of:
    0.08536155 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08536155 = score(doc=7375,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 7375, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7375)
    0.01991023 = product of:
      0.03982046 = sum of:
        0.03982046 = weight(_text_:data in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03982046 = score(doc=7375,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 7375, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7375)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Examines the degree and extent of bibliographic data of selected electronic journals in the national bibliographic utilities, and the means to provide access to them at individual libraries. The study was limited to networked electronic journals, and each title was searched in OCLC to determine its availability in a national database as well as its holdings libraries

0.04206109 = product of:
  0.21030545 = sum of:
    0.21030545 = sum of:
      0.11262927 = weight(_text_:data in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11262927 = score(doc=6381,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.7905126 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
      0.09767618 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09767618 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

Data Discman

Source

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

0.037583813 = product of:
  0.18791907 = sum of:
    0.18791907 = weight(_text_:readable in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18791907 = score(doc=593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.67881453 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An influential analysis of text-markup systems and arguments for the use of descriptive markup in machine-readable texts

0.03546342 = product of:
  0.1773171 = sum of:
    0.1773171 = sum of:
      0.07964092 = weight(_text_:data in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07964092 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.09767618 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09767618 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.028094485 = product of:
  0.07023621 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
    0.01742145 = product of:
      0.0348429 = sum of:
        0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348429 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reviews the 6 principal forces driving electronic information publishing forward: volume of information; need to search for information; information richness; demands of management and distribution of information; low cost technologies (such as CD-ROM) and environmental impact making paper less attractive. Lists the corresponding forces inhibiting this change from print to electronic publishing; habit; incompatible standards; incompatible authoring processes; display incompatibilities; and portability limitations. Concludes with a list of key areas emerging for electronic information on CD-ROM; reference materials; catalogues; bibliographic and demographic data; merketing materials; educational materials; and records (replacing microfilm and microfiche)

0.02744515 = product of:
  0.06861287 = sum of:
    0.053350966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053350966 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.015261904 = product of:
      0.030523809 = sum of:
        0.030523809 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030523809 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.026317945 = product of:
  0.06579486 = sum of:
    0.053350966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053350966 = score(doc=3986,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=3986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reviews the current state of the art in the field of electronic publishing of periodical articles in full text, with particular reference to the experiences of Elsevier Science. Distinguishes between 4 types of full text electronic publishing: bibliographic data, for example CAPCAS, with SGML type electronic bibliographic records for articles in Elsevier journals; electronic access to an existing periodical on a single title basis, similar to the way in which Elsevier provides access to articles in the well established printed periodical Nuclear Physics; enhancement of an existing periodical through expanded hypertext links, in the same way that Immunology Today Online is provided with value added features impossible to emulate in a printed periodical; and the TULIP model, an Elsevier initiative which enables large scale full text document delivery of electronic periodicals via unedited ASCII full text created by OCR and cover to cover 300 dpi bitmapped page images. Pays tribute to other initiatives in the field, including: document delivery services such as UnCover and the British Library's Inside Information; Digital Libraries Initiative; Informedia Digital Video Library Project; Stanford Integrated Digital Library Project; California University at Berkeley Digital Library Project and Alexandria Digital Library Project. Discusses the future of the information and publishing industries in the light of these developments, noting the implications and problems likely to be encountered and the opportunities for new, multimedia publications

0.020067489 = product of:
  0.050168723 = sum of:
    0.03772483 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772483 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Although the open access citation advantage (OACA) has been discussed extensively, scholars lack a clear understanding of the mechanisms through which switching from subscription-based model to open access (OA) model affects the citation impact of a scholarly journal. Many journals have switched from subscription to OA, yet they later also flipped their preswitching articles (i.e., those under subscription model) to OA, thus leaving no subscription article to be compared with their postswitching OA counterparts. To detect the switching effect, our study instead focused on 60 journals that "reverse flipped" from OA to subscription. We use a difference-in-difference (DiD) analytical framework to analyze two propositions related to OACA, based on the bibliographic and citation data of pre- and postswitching publications in these journals. Our findings indicate that reverse flipping is unlikely to affect the journals' impact through changing the visibility of their articles. Instead, it could lead to a systematical shift in the submissions to the journals and thus considerably affect their impact. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications for subsequent studies, funding agencies, and scholarly journals considering a reverse flip.

0.01773171 = product of:
  0.08865855 = sum of:
    0.08865855 = sum of:
      0.03982046 = weight(_text_:data in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03982046 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.04883809 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04883809 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.015515247 = product of:
  0.077576235 = sum of:
    0.077576235 = sum of:
      0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0348429 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.04273333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04273333 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

0.015515247 = product of:
  0.077576235 = sum of:
    0.077576235 = sum of:
      0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0348429 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 3909, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3909)
      0.04273333 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04273333 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ein ideales Repositorium bedient alle Interessen der unterschiedlichen beteiligten AkteurInnen und ihrer Institution, es entspricht den Erfordernissen konkreter Fächer und Fächergruppen und unterstützt Strategien, die die Wissenschaft insgesamt und langfristig betreffen. Es lässt die für den User unkomplizierte Archivierung sämtlicher digitaler Objekte inklusive Datenbanken zu, spiegelt innovative Forschungsfelder der Universität wider und unterstützt insbesondere auch die Lehre. Es bietet Tools und Rechercheoptionen im Sinne von Big Data an.

Date

20. 9.2018 12:22:39

0.015515247 = product of:
  0.077576235 = sum of:
    0.077576235 = sum of:
      0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0348429 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
      0.04273333 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04273333 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

Source

Open Password. 2021, Nr.935 vom 16.06.2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMwNSwiMjNiZDFkOWY4Nzg5IiwwLDAsMjc1LDFd]

0.015033525 = product of:
  0.075167626 = sum of:
    0.075167626 = weight(_text_:readable in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075167626 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2768342 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2715258 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

0.0132987825 = product of:
  0.06649391 = sum of:
    0.06649391 = sum of:
      0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029865343 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.036628567 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036628567 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.012804233 = product of:
  0.06402116 = sum of:
    0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3897) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06402116 = score(doc=3897,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 3897, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3897)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Explores the relationship between costs and pricing strategies in the publishing of print andelectronic documents, with a view to identifying the cost factors that may influence the viability of electronic documents, in the context of reference and bibliographic databases. Presents an overview of the different approaches that publishers can take to the management of the relationship between pricing, costs and value. Discusses 3 categories of costs associated with the production of electronic and print products: database costs; distribution media costs: and overhead costs. In assessing the viability of electronic publishing it is important to recognize that it is not sufficient to seek to identify whether print or electronic documents are the cheaper to produce, but to consider all costs and to view the elctronic product in its context as part of a publishing portfolio

0.0122095235 = product of:
  0.061047617 = sum of:
    0.061047617 = product of:
      0.122095235 = sum of:
        0.122095235 = weight(_text_:22 in 3204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122095235 = score(doc=3204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

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

0.012071946 = product of:
  0.060359728 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=5869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5869)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 25(1996) no.2, 39-42

0.011780915 = product of:
  0.058904573 = sum of:
    0.058904573 = sum of:
      0.03448553 = weight(_text_:data in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03448553 = score(doc=4631,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = queryNorm
          0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.024419045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024419045 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15778607 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04505818 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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