Search (167 results, page 1 of 9)

0.04734261 = product of:
  0.21304174 = sum of:
    0.15200971 = weight(_text_:readable in 8516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15200971 = score(doc=8516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2262076 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.061032027 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061032027 = score(doc=8516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.029319711 = product of:
  0.1319387 = sum of:
    0.09203196 = weight(_text_:data in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09203196 = score(doc=6381,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.03990673 = product of:
      0.07981346 = sum of:
        0.07981346 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07981346 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Object

Data Discman

Source

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

0.027386125 = product of:
  0.123237565 = sum of:
    0.02300799 = weight(_text_:data in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02300799 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.100229576 = weight(_text_:germany in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100229576 = score(doc=250,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4564889 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Content

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

0.02729831 = product of:
  0.2456848 = sum of:
    0.2456848 = weight(_text_:readable in 5929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2456848 = score(doc=5929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2262076 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.026335854 = product of:
  0.11851134 = sum of:
    0.012201829 = weight(_text_:data in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012201829 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.10480815 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.10630951 = weight(_text_:germany in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10630951 = score(doc=1195,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4841796 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

0.02332959 = product of:
  0.10498315 = sum of:
    0.065076426 = weight(_text_:data in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065076426 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.03990673 = product of:
      0.07981346 = sum of:
        0.07981346 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07981346 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

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

0.022730911 = product of:
  0.102289096 = sum of:
    0.06975088 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06975088 = score(doc=7375,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=7375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.022504056 = product of:
  0.2025365 = sum of:
    0.2025365 = weight(_text_:germany in 8415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2025365 = score(doc=8415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.9224389 = fieldWeight in 8415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8415)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.022465432 = product of:
  0.10109445 = sum of:
    0.028759988 = weight(_text_:data in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028759988 = score(doc=1542,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
    0.07233446 = weight(_text_:germany in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07233446 = score(doc=1542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.32944247 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.

0.017061446 = product of:
  0.15355301 = sum of:
    0.15355301 = weight(_text_:readable in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15355301 = score(doc=593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2262076 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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

0.015917132 = product of:
  0.071627095 = sum of:
    0.04315616 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04315616 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.028470935 = weight(_text_:data in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028470935 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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)

0.014206818 = product of:
  0.06393068 = sum of:
    0.0435943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0435943 = score(doc=3986,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.020336384 = weight(_text_:data in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020336384 = score(doc=3986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.012458923 = product of:
  0.056065153 = sum of:
    0.0435943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0435943 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.012470853 = product of:
      0.024941705 = sum of:
        0.024941705 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024941705 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.011664795 = product of:
  0.052491575 = sum of:
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.019953365 = product of:
      0.03990673 = sum of:
        0.03990673 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03990673 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.011369381 = product of:
  0.051162213 = sum of:
    0.03082583 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03082583 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.020336384 = weight(_text_:data in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020336384 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.011366264 = product of:
  0.102296375 = sum of:
    0.102296375 = weight(_text_:germany in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102296375 = score(doc=1585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.46590203 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

LCSH

Electronic publishing / Germany

Subject

Electronic publishing / Germany

0.010206696 = product of:
  0.04593013 = sum of:
    0.028470935 = weight(_text_:data in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028470935 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.010206696 = product of:
  0.04593013 = sum of:
    0.028470935 = weight(_text_:data in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028470935 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.010206696 = product of:
  0.04593013 = sum of:
    0.028470935 = weight(_text_:data in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028470935 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = 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)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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]

0.009644595 = product of:
  0.08680135 = sum of:
    0.08680135 = weight(_text_:germany in 3562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08680135 = score(doc=3562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 3562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3562)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

With the start of the new year 2017, about 60 universities and other research institutions in Germany are set to lose subscription access to one of the main STEM publishers, Elsevier. The reason being negotiations of the DEAL consortium (600 institutions in total) with the publisher. In the run-up to these negotiations, all members of the consortium were urged to not renew their individual subscriptions with the publisher and most institutions apparently followed this call. As the first Elsevier offer was rejected by DEAL and further negotiations have been postponed until 2017, the participating institutions whose individual contract runs out this year will be without continued subscription access - as long as they don't cave in and broker new individual contracts. At first, this may seem like a massive problem for all students and faculty at these institutions. However, there are now so many alternative access strategies, that the well-informed scholar may not even notice much of a difference. Here are ten different options, in no particular order.