-
Hartley, J.: Designing electronic text : the role of print-based research (1987)
0.05
0.04520554 = product of:
0.13561662 = sum of:
0.13561662 = weight(_text_:electronic in 7756) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13561662 = score(doc=7756,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.69110936 = fieldWeight in 7756, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7756)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.; Blurton, A.: Obtaining information accurately and quickly : are structured abstracts more efficient? (1996)
0.04
0.039587595 = product of:
0.059381388 = sum of:
0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042380195 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, 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=7673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356
-
Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Hartley, J.: Spamming in scholarly publishing : a case study (2016)
0.02
0.019106109 = product of:
0.057318322 = sum of:
0.057318322 = product of:
0.114636645 = sum of:
0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.114636645 = score(doc=3058,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Spam has become an issue of concern in almost all areas where the Internet is involved, and many people today have become victims of spam from publishers and individual journals. We studied this phenomenon in the field of scholarly publishing from the perspective of a single author. We examined 1,024 such spam e-mails received by Marcin Kozak from publishers and journals over a period of 391 days, asking him to submit an article to their journal. We collected the following information: where the request came from; publishing model applied; fees charged; inclusion or not in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and presence or not in Beall's (2014) listing of dubious journals. Our research showed that most of the publishers that sent e-mails inviting manuscripts were (i) using the open access model, (ii) using article-processing charges to fund their journal's operations; (iii) offering very short peer-review times, (iv) on Beall's list, and (v) misrepresenting the location of their headquarters. Some years ago, a letter of invitation to submit an article to a particular journal was considered a kind of distinction. Today, e-mails inviting submissions are generally spam, something that misleads young researchers and irritates experienced ones.
-
Hartley, J.: Is it appropriate to use structured abstracts in social science journals? (1997)
0.02
0.017649466 = product of:
0.052948397 = sum of:
0.052948397 = product of:
0.10589679 = sum of:
0.10589679 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10589679 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Learned publishing. 10(1997) no.4, S.313-317
-
Kozak, M.; Hartley, J.: Publication fees for open access journals : different disciplines-different methods (2013)
0.02
0.017649466 = product of:
0.052948397 = sum of:
0.052948397 = product of:
0.10589679 = sum of:
0.10589679 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10589679 = score(doc=1140,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Many authors appear to think that most open access (OA) journals charge authors for their publications. This brief communication examines the basis for such beliefs and finds it wanting. Indeed, in this study of over 9,000 OA journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, only 28% charged authors for publishing in their journals. This figure, however, was highest in various disciplines in medicine (47%) and the sciences (43%) and lowest in the humanities (4%) and the arts (0%).
-
Hartley, J.: Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines (2006)
0.01
0.014126732 = product of:
0.042380195 = sum of:
0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042380195 = score(doc=195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=195)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Reading and writing book reviews for learned journals plays an important part in academic life but little is known about how academics carry out these tasks. The aim of this research was to explore these activities with academics from the arts and humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. An electronic questionnaire was used to ascertain (a) how often the respondents read and wrote book reviews, (b) how useful they found them, and (c) what features they thought important in book reviews. Fifty-two academics in the arts, 53 in the social sciences, and 51 in the sciences replied. There were few disciplinary differences. Most respondents reported reading between one and five book reviews a month and writing between one and two a year. There was high overall agreement between what the respondents thought were important features of book reviews, but there were also wide individual differences between them. This agreement across the disciplines supports the notion that book reviews can be seen as an academic genre with measurable features. This has implications for how they are written, and how authors might be taught to write them better. A potential checklist for authors is suggested.
-
Hartley, J.: Applying psychology to text design : a case history (1997)
0.01
0.011334131 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = product of:
0.06800478 = sum of:
0.06800478 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06800478 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10
-
Hartley, J.; Sydes, M.: Which layout do you prefer? : an analysis of readers' preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts (1996)
0.01
0.0068004774 = product of:
0.020401431 = sum of:
0.020401431 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040802862 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37
