-
Zhang, Y.: ¬The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science : a citation analysis (1998)
0.06
0.06496532 = product of:
0.09744798 = sum of:
0.073404655 = weight(_text_:electronic in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073404655 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.37407395 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
0.024043318 = product of:
0.048086636 = sum of:
0.048086636 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048086636 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish
- Date
- 30. 1.1999 17:22:22
-
Zhang, Y.: Scholarly use of Internet-based electronic resources (2001)
0.03
0.033904158 = product of:
0.101712465 = sum of:
0.101712465 = weight(_text_:electronic in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101712465 = score(doc=5212,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.518332 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- By Internet resources Zhang means any electronic file accessible by any Internet protocol. Their usage is determined by an examination of the citations to such sources in a nine-year sample of four print and four electronic LIS journals, by a survey of editors of these journals, and by a survey of scholars with "in press" papers in these journals. Citations were gathered from Social Science Citation Index and manually classed as e-sources by the format used. All authors with "in press" papers were asked about their use and opinion of Internet sources and for any suggestions for improvement. Use of electronic sources is heavy and access is very high. Access and ability explain most usage while satisfaction was not significant. Citation of e-journals increases over the eight years. Authors report under citation of e-journals in favor of print equivalents. Traditional reasons are given for citing and not citing, but additional reasons are also present for e-journals.
-
Zhang, Y.; Kudva, S.: E-books versus print books : readers' choices and preferences across contexts (2014)
0.01
0.014126732 = product of:
0.042380195 = sum of:
0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042380195 = score(doc=1335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1335, 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=1335)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.
-
Zhang, Y.: ¬The effect of open access on citation impact : a comparison study based on Web citation analysis (2006)
0.01
0.011030916 = product of:
0.03309275 = sum of:
0.03309275 = product of:
0.0661855 = sum of:
0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0661855 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.
-
Zhang, Y.: Developing a holistic model for digital library evaluation (2010)
0.01
0.0068004774 = product of:
0.020401431 = sum of:
0.020401431 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040802862 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.
-
Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009)
0.01
0.0068004774 = product of:
0.020401431 = sum of:
0.020401431 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040802862 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:49:11
-
Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Song, S.: ¬The design and evaluation of a nudge-based interface to facilitate consumers' evaluation of online health information credibility (2023)
0.01
0.0056670653 = product of:
0.017001195 = sum of:
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 993, 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=993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:18:34
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.01
0.0056670653 = product of:
0.017001195 = sum of:
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
