Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.059547983 = product of:
  0.17864394 = sum of:
    0.17864394 = sum of:
      0.1310406 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1310406 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.5343672 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047603343 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.055763405 = product of:
  0.16729021 = sum of:
    0.16729021 = sum of:
      0.1400883 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1400883 = score(doc=3769,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.5712626 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02720191 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, 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=3769)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The debate about access to scientific research raises questions about the current effectiveness of scholarly communication processes. This book explores, from an independent point of view, the current state of the STM publishing market, new publishing technologies and business models as well as the information habit of researchers, the politics of research funders, and the demand for scientific research as a public good. The book also investigates the democratisation of science including how the information needs of knowledge workers outside academia can be embraced in future.

Content

Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed

LCSH

Science publishing
Scholarly publishing

Subject

Science publishing
Scholarly publishing

0.0503153 = product of:
  0.07547294 = sum of:
    0.042380195 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042380195 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.21597168 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1194, 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=1194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Open access (OA) is free, unrestricted access to electronic versions of scholarly publications. For peer-reviewed journal articles, there are two main routes to OA: publishing in OA journals (gold OA) or archiving of article copies or manuscripts at other web locations (green OA). This study focuses on summarizing and extending current knowledge about green OA. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that green OA coverage of all published journal articles is approximately 12%, with substantial disciplinary variation. Typically, green OA copies become available after considerable time delays, partly caused by publisher-imposed embargo periods, and partly by author tendencies to archive manuscripts only periodically. Although green OA copies should ideally be archived in proper repositories, a large share is stored on home pages and similar locations, with no assurance of long-term preservation. Often such locations contain exact copies of published articles, which may infringe on the publisher's exclusive rights. The technical foundation for green OA uploading is becoming increasingly solid largely due to the rapid increase in the number of institutional repositories. The number of articles within the scope of OA mandates, which strongly influence the self-archival rate of articles, is nevertheless still low.

0.04853271 = product of:
  0.14559813 = sum of:
    0.14559813 = sum of:
      0.118396215 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118396215 = score(doc=4631,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.48280498 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02720191 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.04756289 = product of:
  0.07134433 = sum of:
    0.033904154 = weight(_text_:electronic in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033904154 = score(doc=940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.17277734 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
    0.037440173 = product of:
      0.07488035 = sum of:
        0.07488035 = weight(_text_:publishing in 940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07488035 = score(doc=940,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.3053527 = fieldWeight in 940, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.043680202 = product of:
  0.1310406 = sum of:
    0.1310406 = product of:
      0.2620812 = sum of:
        0.2620812 = weight(_text_:publishing in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2620812 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            1.0687344 = fieldWeight in 805, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A publishing giant goes after the authors of its journals' papers

0.029599054 = product of:
  0.08879716 = sum of:
    0.08879716 = product of:
      0.17759432 = sum of:
        0.17759432 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17759432 = score(doc=5330,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.72420746 = fieldWeight in 5330, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Predatory Publishing ist seit der umfangreichen internationalen Medienberichterstattung im Sommer 2018 auch der breiten Öffentlichkeit ein Begriff. Zeitschriften, Radio und Fernsehen in zahlreichen Ländern, darunter auch im deutschen Sprachraum, berichteten über mehrere Wochen ausführlich zu diesen betrügerischen Geschäftspraktiken. Das Problem ist in Fachkreisen jedoch bereits seit einigen Jahren bekannt und nimmt seither immer stärker zu. Die Publikationsservices an der Universität Graz beraten und informieren seit 2017 die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler, aber auch die Studierenden zum Thema Predatory Publishing. Der folgende Beitrag bietet bietet im ersten Abschnitt wesentliche Informationen zu Predatory Publishing sowie damit in Zusammenhang stehend, auch die im Zuge der Medienkampagne 2018 kolportierten Themen Fake Science und Fake News, und wendet sich in den folgenden zwei Abschnitten der Praxis zu, wenn es zum einen um die Grundlagen der Auseinandersetzung mit Predatory Publishing an Universitäten geht und zum anderen die Aufklärungsarbeit und Services an der Universität Graz durch Mitarbeiter/innen der Universitätsbibliothek als Fallbeispiel aus der Praxis vorgestellt werden.

0.026748553 = product of:
  0.08024566 = sum of:
    0.08024566 = product of:
      0.16049132 = sum of:
        0.16049132 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16049132 = score(doc=3429,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.6544635 = fieldWeight in 3429, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This research applies statistical time series analysis to examine the changing pattern of scholars' attitudes toward open-access (OA) journal publishing from the early 1990s. By synthesizing survey results in existing studies, this research focuses on representative aspects of the attitudes and behaviors recorded through the years. It finds that although an increase in the publishing and awareness rates of scholars with regard to OA journals has been observed, scholars have been consistently concerned with the low prestige of such journals and their lack of peer review, which is not the case in practice. It is hoped that the findings will provide useful information for the improvement of OA advocacy.

0.026748553 = product of:
  0.08024566 = sum of:
    0.08024566 = product of:
      0.16049132 = sum of:
        0.16049132 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16049132 = score(doc=3711,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.6544635 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google - and it was created by one of Britain's most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell. "Even scientists who are fighting for reform are often not aware of the roots of the system: how, in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society."

Source

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

0.0264742 = product of:
  0.0794226 = sum of:
    0.0794226 = product of:
      0.1588452 = sum of:
        0.1588452 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588452 = score(doc=3652,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 3652, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Internet has triggered transformational change in the dissemination of science in the form of a global transition to open access (OA) publishing. Heavy investment favoring Gold over Green OA has been associated with increased total publication costs, inequality of opportunity to publish, and concerns about integrity in science reporting. Notwithstanding current fluidity because of ongoing competition for market share between supporters of the major alternative publishing strategies, emerging trends indicate the need for material and human resources to be redirected away from Gold and toward Green OA. Doing so will reduce total publication costs, increase equality of access for authors and readers, and remove the financial incentives that have encouraged poor and corrupt publishing practices.

0.024665877 = product of:
  0.07399763 = sum of:
    0.07399763 = product of:
      0.14799526 = sum of:
        0.14799526 = weight(_text_:publishing in 754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14799526 = score(doc=754,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.6035062 = fieldWeight in 754, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=754)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open access (OA) journals distribute their content at no charge and use other means of funding the publication process. Publication fees or article-processing charges (APC)s have become the predominant means for funding professional OA publishing. We surveyed 1,038 authors who recently published articles in 74 OA journals that charge APCs stratified into seven discipline categories. Authors were asked about the source of funding for the APC, factors influencing their choice of a journal and past history publishing in OA and subscription journals. Additional information about the journal and the authors' country were obtained from the journal website. A total of 429 (41%) authors from 69 journals completed the survey. There were large differences in the source of funding among disciplines. Journals with impact factors charged higher APCs as did journals from disciplines where grant funding is plentiful. Fit, quality, and speed of publication were the most important factors in the authors' choice of a journal. OA was less important but a significant factor for many authors in their choice of a journal to publish. These findings are consistent with other research on OA publishing and suggest that OA publishing funded through APCs is likely to continue to grow.

0.021840101 = product of:
  0.0655203 = sum of:
    0.0655203 = product of:
      0.1310406 = sum of:
        0.1310406 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1310406 = score(doc=3683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5343672 = fieldWeight in 3683, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Der folgende Beitrag bietet einen Überblick über die Situation von Open Access Publishing in Österreich im Jahr 2010. Zunächst werden die österreichische Beteiligung an Open-Access-Deklarationen sowie wichtige Open-Access-Veranstaltungen in Österreich dargestellt. Dann werden die Beiträge Österreichs für den Goldenen Weg zu Open Access (OA-Zeitschriften) und für den Grünen Weg zu Open Access (Repositorien) skizziert. Es folgt eine Darstellung der Open Access Policies der wichtigsten Forschungsförderungsorganisation, der größten Universität des Landes sowie der Österreichischen Universitätenkonferenz. Den Abschluss bilden die Frage nach der Finanzierung von Open Access und eine Beschreibung der geänderten gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen für Open Access in Österreich.

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=3016,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 3016, 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=3016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the "total cost of publication" (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007-2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing ("Gold" OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, "hybrid" subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large "traditional" commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=3597,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 3597, 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=3597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more positive about its benefits than they were negative about its disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively consistent across the academic community.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=2299,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

How does publication pressure in modern-day universities affect the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in science? By using a worldwide survey among demographers in developed and developing countries, the authors show that the large majority perceive the publication pressure as high, but more so in Anglo-Saxon countries and to a lesser extent in Western Europe. However, scholars see both the pros (upward mobility) and cons (excessive publication and uncitedness, neglect of policy issues, etc.) of the so-called publish-or-perish culture. By measuring behavior in terms of reading and publishing, and perceived extrinsic rewards and stated intrinsic rewards of practicing science, it turns out that publication pressure negatively affects the orientation of demographers towards policy and knowledge sharing. There are no signs that the pressure affects reading and publishing outside the core discipline.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=365,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = fieldWeight in 365, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Article processing charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was $906 U.S. dollars (USD) calculated over journals and $904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between $8 and $3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals.

0.017649466 = product of:
  0.052948397 = sum of:
    0.052948397 = product of:
      0.10589679 = sum of:
        0.10589679 = weight(_text_:publishing in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10589679 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.4318339 = fieldWeight in 2986, 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=2986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=1553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 1553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1553)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Electronic documents produced in business processes are valuable information resources for organizations. In many cases they have to be accessible long after the life of the business processes or information systems in connection with which they were created. To improve the management and preservation of documents, organizations are deploying Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a standardized format for documents. The goal of this paper is to increase understanding of XML document management and provide a framework to enable the analysis and description of the management of XML documents throughout their life. We followed the design science approach. We introduce a document life cycle model consisting of five phases. For each of the phases we describe the typical activities related to the management of XML documents. Furthermore, we also identify the typical actors, systems, and types of content items associated with the activities of the phases. We demonstrate the use of the model in two case studies: one concerning the State Budget Proposal of the Finnish government and the other concerning a faculty council meeting agenda at a university.

0.01602888 = product of:
  0.048086636 = sum of:
    0.048086636 = product of:
      0.09617327 = sum of:
        0.09617327 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09617327 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.015600072 = product of:
  0.046800215 = sum of:
    0.046800215 = product of:
      0.09360043 = sum of:
        0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09360043 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Design/methodology/approach - Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship. Findings - Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal - there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories. Practical implications - Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future. Research limitations/implications - This is an important area which requires close monitoring - the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new "free" scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome. Originality/value - The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.