Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × author_ss:"Zhang, Y."
  1. 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.
  2. 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.