Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12890255 = product of:
  0.19335383 = sum of:
    0.12457183 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12457183 = score(doc=1656,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.6348245 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
    0.068781994 = product of:
      0.13756399 = sum of:
        0.13756399 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13756399 = score(doc=1656,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 1656, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This selective bibliography presents over 1,900 articles, books, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding scholarly electronic publishing efforts on the Internet

Content

Table of Contents 1 Economic Issues* 2 Electronic Books and Texts 2.1 Case Studies and History 2.2 General Works* 2.3 Library Issues* 3 Electronic Serials 3.1 Case Studies and History 3.2 Critiques 3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals 3.4 General Works* 3.5 Library Issues* 3.6 Research* 4 General Works* 5 Legal Issues 5.1 Intellectual Property Rights* 5.2 License Agreements 5.3 Other Legal Issues 6 Library Issues 6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata* 6.2 Digital Libraries* 6.3 General Works* 6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation* 7 New Publishing Models* 8 Publisher Issues 8.1 Digital Rights Management* 9 Repositories and E-Prints* Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author Appendix B. About the Author

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

0.039956436 = product of:
  0.1198693 = sum of:
    0.1198693 = weight(_text_:electronic in 8747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1198693 = score(doc=8747,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.61086017 = fieldWeight in 8747, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8747)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Electronic edition of van Herwijnen's book 'Practical SGML'

Imprint

Providence, RI : Electronic Book Technologies

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 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

0.020761972 = product of:
  0.062285915 = sum of:
    0.062285915 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062285915 = score(doc=1222,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.31741226 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.
Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.

0.019777425 = product of:
  0.059332274 = sum of:
    0.059332274 = weight(_text_:electronic in 1218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059332274 = score(doc=1218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.30236036 = fieldWeight in 1218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1218)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The University of California's California Digital Library (CDL) formed an Ebook Task Force in August 2000 to evaluate academic libraries' experiences with electronic books (e-books), investigate the e-book market, and develop operating guidelines, principles and potential strategies for further exploration of the use of e-books at the University of California (UC). This article, based on the findings and recommendations of the Task Force Report, briefly summarizes task force findings, and outlines issues and recommendations for making e-books viable over the long term in the academic environment, based on the long-term goals of building strong research collections and providing high level services and collections to its users.

0.018720087 = product of:
  0.056160256 = sum of:
    0.056160256 = product of:
      0.11232051 = sum of:
        0.11232051 = weight(_text_:publishing in 805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11232051 = score(doc=805,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.45802903 = 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)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Mailtext: "Im Rahmen der Schwerpunktinitiative "Digitale Information" der Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen wurden jetzt "Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern" veröffentlicht. Die formulierten Kriterien dienen als gemeinsamer und handlungsleitender Rahmen der Akteur:innen aus allen Wissenschaftsorganisationen, d.h. Hochschulen ebenso wie außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen, für Verhandlungen mit Publikationsdienstleistern. Dabei bildet die Forderung nach größtmöglicher Kostentransparenz und Kosteneffizienz im Gesamtsystem den Kern des Handelns der Wissenschaftsorganisationen im Kontext ihrer Open-Access-Strategie für die Jahre 2021-2025. Diese Kriterien gliedern sich in die Aspekte Transformation von Zeitschriften, Preisgestaltung, Transparenz, Workflow, Preprints, Qualitätssicherung, Metadaten und Schnittstellen, Statistiken, Tracking und Waiver. Deutsche Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.045 Englische Version: https://doi.org/10.48440/allianzoa.046 Siehe auch: Empfehlungen für transformative Zeitschriftenverträge mit Publikationsdienstleistern veröffentlicht https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/empfehlungen-fuer-transformative-zeitschriftenvertraege-mit-publikationsdienstleistern-veroeffentlicht/ Recommendations for Transformative Journal Agreements with Providers of Publishing Services published https://www.allianzinitiative.de/2022/11/24/recommendations-for-transformative-journal-agreements-with-providers-of-publishing-services-published/?lang=en"

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 895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09360043 = score(doc=895,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 895, 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=895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

"Die digitale Transformation ermöglichte eine Effizienzsteigerung und Beschleunigung der Publikationsprozesse und eröffnete damit neue Wachstumsoptionen auf dem Markt der wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Diese Entwicklung wirft grundsätzliche Fragen auf: Welche Auswirkungen haben diese Beschleunigung und Wachstumsraten auf die Funktion des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens? Werden sie allein durch Effizienzsteigerungen erreicht oder hat die Entwicklung weiterreichende Auswirkungen auf die im Publikationsprozess oft zeitintensiven Begutachtungsprozesse? Was zeichnet vorbildliche Begutachtungsverfahren aus und wie lassen sich mögliche Zielkonflikte erkennen? Die Relevanz des Themas erschien Kolleg:innen aus verschiedenen deutsch-schweizerischen Bibliotheken so groß, dass sie gemeinsam mit empirischen Sozialwissenschaftlern der TU Dresden das Verbundprojekt «Evaluating the Quality Assurance Process in Scholarly Publishing» (EQUAP^2) gründeten. Das Projekt wurde über Eigenleistungen der beteiligten Akteure und eine finanzielle Unterstützung von Schweizer Bibliotheken und Verbänden sowie der TU9-Bibliotheken ermöglicht. In einem Websurvey konnten mehr als 3.200 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus 25 deutschen und schweizerischen Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen zu ihren Erwartungen an den Begutachtungsprozess und ihren verlagsspezifischen Erfahrungen befragt werden. Zusätzlich wurden zwei faktorielle Erhebungsdesigns in die Umfrage implementiert, um die Best Practice der Peer-Review- und Entscheidungsprozesse bei Zeitschriften zu bewerten. Die Studienergebnisse<https://zenodo.org/record/7612114#.Y-OFPHbMJPY> sind auf der Plattform Zenodo<https://zenodo.org/communities/equap2/?page=1&size=20> veröffentlicht. Die Umfrage zeigt, dass die Erwartungen an den Peer-Review-Prozess über alle Disziplinen hinweg sehr homogen sind, sich aber abhängig von der Rolle der Forschenden im Publikationsprozess deutlich unterscheiden. Die Antworten geben Hinweise auf potentielle Interessenkonflikte sowie diskutable Verlagspraktiken, die in wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen und insbesondere bei Entscheidungen zur Publikationsfinanzierung berücksichtigt werden sollten. Auf der Projekthomepage<https://www.slub-dresden.de/ueber-uns/projekte/evaluating-the-quality-assurance-process-in-scholarly-publishing-equap2> finden Sie weitere Informationen zum Projekt. Das Projektteam ist über die Mailadresse equap2@slub-dresden.de<mailto:equap2@slub-dresden.de> erreichbar."

0.015443282 = product of:
  0.046329845 = sum of:
    0.046329845 = product of:
      0.09265969 = sum of:
        0.09265969 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09265969 = score(doc=3371,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 3371, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3371)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After a year of development, the library at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has launched a repository, called the Illinois Data Bank (https://databank.illinois.edu/), to provide Illinois researchers with a free, self-serve publishing platform that centralizes, preserves, and provides persistent and reliable access to Illinois research data. This article presents a holistic view of development by discussing our overarching technical, policy, and interface strategies. By openly presenting our design decisions, the rationales behind those decisions, and associated challenges this paper aims to contribute to the library community's work to develop repository services that meet growing data preservation and sharing needs.

0.011030916 = product of:
  0.03309275 = sum of:
    0.03309275 = product of:
      0.0661855 = sum of:
        0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0661855 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1226, 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=1226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.0090673035 = product of:
  0.02720191 = sum of:
    0.02720191 = product of:
      0.05440382 = sum of:
        0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05440382 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.008824733 = product of:
  0.026474198 = sum of:
    0.026474198 = product of:
      0.052948397 = sum of:
        0.052948397 = weight(_text_:publishing in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052948397 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.21591695 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.00793389 = product of:
  0.023801671 = sum of:
    0.023801671 = product of:
      0.047603343 = sum of:
        0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047603343 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05

0.0068004774 = product of:
  0.020401431 = sum of:
    0.020401431 = product of:
      0.040802862 = sum of:
        0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040802862 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 1.2020 13:22:34

0.0056670653 = product of:
  0.017001195 = sum of:
    0.017001195 = product of:
      0.03400239 = sum of:
        0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03400239 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 1.2018 11:38:55

0.0045336518 = product of:
  0.013600955 = sum of:
    0.013600955 = product of:
      0.02720191 = sum of:
        0.02720191 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02720191 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.