Search (122 results, page 1 of 7)

0.093802385 = product of:
  0.14070357 = sum of:
    0.07192158 = weight(_text_:electronic in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07192158 = score(doc=37,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.3665161 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
    0.068781994 = product of:
      0.13756399 = sum of:
        0.13756399 = weight(_text_:publishing in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13756399 = score(doc=37,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 37, 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=37)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Open access has long been an ideal of academic publishing. Yet, contrary to initial expectations, cost of access to published scientific knowledge increased following the advent of the Internet and electronic processing. An analysis of the ethicality of current arrangements in academic publishing shows that monetization and the sequestering of scientific knowledge behind paywalls breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest. Following decades of failed effort to redress the situation, there are ethical grounds for consumers of scientific knowledge to invoke the right of collective civil disobedience, including support for pirate open access. Could this be the best option available to consumers of scientific knowledge for removing paywalls to knowledge that rightly belongs in the public domain?

0.046754345 = product of:
  0.14026304 = sum of:
    0.14026304 = sum of:
      0.09265969 = weight(_text_:publishing in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09265969 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.37785465 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
      0.047603343 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047603343 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, 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=547)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.

Date

6. 4.2022 19:22:26

0.042534273 = product of:
  0.12760282 = sum of:
    0.12760282 = sum of:
      0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09360043 = score(doc=1055,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
      0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 1055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03400239 = score(doc=1055,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1055, 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=1055)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Journal lists are instruments to categorize, compare, and assess research and scholarly publications. Our study investigates the remarkable proliferation of such journal lists in China, analyses their underlying values, quality criteria and ranking principles, and specifies how concerns specific to the Chinese research policy and publishing system inform these lists. Discouraged lists of "bad journals" reflect concerns over inferior research publications, but also the involved drain on public resources. Endorsed lists of "good journals" are based on criteria valued in research policy, reflecting the distinctive administrative logic of state-led Chinese research and publishing policy, ascribing worth to scientific journals for its specific national and institutional needs. In this regard, the criteria used for journal list construction are contextual and reflect the challenges of public resource allocation in a market-led publication system. Chinese journal lists therefore reflect research policy changes, such as a shift away from output-dominated research evaluation, the specific concerns about research misconduct, and balancing national research needs against international standards, resulting in distinctly Chinese quality criteria. However, contrasting concerns and inaccuracies lead to contradictions in the "qualify" and "disqualify" binary logic and demonstrate inherent tensions and limitations in journal lists as policy tools.

Date

22. 9.2023 16:39:23

0.040075153 = product of:
  0.12022546 = sum of:
    0.12022546 = sum of:
      0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0794226 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
      0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040802862 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:14

0.03339596 = product of:
  0.10018788 = sum of:
    0.10018788 = sum of:
      0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0661855 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
      0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 5757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03400239 = score(doc=5757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05019314 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5757, 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=5757)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Cultural heritage institutions are publishing their digital collections over the web as LOD. This is is a new step in the patrimonialization and curatorial processes developed by such institutions. Many of these collections are thematically superimposed and complementary. Frequently, objects in these collections present culturally relevant relationships, such as a book about a painting, or a draft or sketch of a famous painting, etc. LOD technology enables such heritage records to be interlinked, achieving interoperability and adding value to digital collections, thus empowering heritage institutions. An aim of this research is characterizing such culturally relevant relationships and organizing them in a vocabulary. Use cases or examples of relationships between objects suggested by curators or mentioned in literature and in the conceptual models as FRBR/LRM, CIDOC CRM and RiC-CM, were collected and used as examples or inspiration of cultural relevant relationships. Relationships identified are collated and compared for identifying those with the same or similar meaning, synthesized and normalized. A set of thirty-three culturally relevant relationships are identified and formalized as a LOD property vocabulary to be used by digital curators to interlink digital collections. The results presented are provisional and a starting point to be discussed, tested, and enhanced.

Date

4. 3.2020 14:22:41

0.027020117 = product of:
  0.08106035 = sum of:
    0.08106035 = product of:
      0.1621207 = sum of:
        0.1621207 = weight(_text_:publishing in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1621207 = score(doc=9,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.66110796 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The emergence of open access (OA) publishing has altered incentives and opportunities for academic stakeholders and publishers. These changes have yielded a variety of new economic and academic niches, including journals with questionable peer-review systems and business models, commonly dubbed "predatory publishing." Empirical analysis of Cabell's Journal Blacklist reveals substantial diversity in types and degrees of predatory publishing. While some blacklisted publishers produce journals with many severe violations of academic norms, "gray" journals and publishers occupy borderline or ambiguous niches between predation and legitimacy. Predation in academic publishing is not a simple binary phenomenon and should instead be perceived as a spectrum with varying types and degrees of illegitimacy. Conceptions of predation are based on overlapping evaluations of academic and economic legitimacy. High institutional status benefits publishers by reducing conflicts between-if not aligning-professional and market institutional logics, which are more likely to conflict and create illegitimacy concerns in downmarket niches. High rejection rates imbue high-status journals with value and pricing power, while low-status OA journals face "predatory" incentives to optimize revenue via low selectivity. Status influences the social acceptability of profit-seeking in academic publishing, rendering lower-status publishers vulnerable to being perceived and stigmatized as illegitimate.

0.026573336 = product of:
  0.079720005 = sum of:
    0.079720005 = product of:
      0.23916002 = sum of:
        0.23916002 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23916002 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42553797 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN

0.0264742 = product of:
  0.0794226 = sum of:
    0.0794226 = product of:
      0.1588452 = sum of:
        0.1588452 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588452 = score(doc=5913,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 5913, 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=5913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer-review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis-à-vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and "quasi-megajournals" (Nature Communications, PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals. These niches-defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity-are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals-including megajournals-reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science.

0.0264742 = product of:
  0.0794226 = sum of:
    0.0794226 = product of:
      0.1588452 = sum of:
        0.1588452 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588452 = score(doc=1161,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.64775085 = fieldWeight in 1161, 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=1161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.

0.022927333 = product of:
  0.068781994 = sum of:
    0.068781994 = product of:
      0.13756399 = sum of:
        0.13756399 = weight(_text_:publishing in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13756399 = score(doc=943,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.56096876 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.

0.022061832 = product of:
  0.0661855 = sum of:
    0.0661855 = product of:
      0.132371 = sum of:
        0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.132371 = score(doc=5920,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

0.022061832 = product of:
  0.0661855 = sum of:
    0.0661855 = product of:
      0.132371 = sum of:
        0.132371 = weight(_text_:publishing in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.132371 = score(doc=448,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 11) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=11,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 11, 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=11)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders [Belgium], Norway, Poland, and Slovenia). Although English tends to be the dominant language of science, SSH researchers often produce culturally and societally relevant work in their local languages. We collected and analyzed a set of 164,218 peer-reviewed journal articles (produced by 51,063 researchers from 2013 to 2015) and found that multilingualism is prevalent despite geographical location and field. Among the researchers who published at least three journal articles during this time period, over one-third from the various countries had written their work in at least two languages. The highest share of researchers who published in only one language were from Flanders (80.9%), whereas the lowest shares were from Slovenia (57.2%) and Poland (59.3%). Our findings show that multilingual publishing is an ongoing practice in many SSH research fields regardless of geographical location, political situation, and/or historical heritage. Here we argue that research is international, but multilingual publishing keeps locally relevant research alive with the added potential for creating impact.

0.019106109 = product of:
  0.057318322 = sum of:
    0.057318322 = product of:
      0.114636645 = sum of:
        0.114636645 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.114636645 = score(doc=1206,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 1206, 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=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still-growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core-to-periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high-status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery-to-core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less-legitimate journals generally exhibit core-to-periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy-or lack thereof-affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals.

0.016952079 = product of:
  0.050856233 = sum of:
    0.050856233 = weight(_text_:electronic in 588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050856233 = score(doc=588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19623034 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9095051 = idf(docFreq=2409, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05019314 = queryNorm
        0.259166 = fieldWeight in 588, 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=588)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article provides an overview of computer based catalogue systems designed for use by library clients, seeing present day 'discovery systems' on the same trajectory as the older 'online public access catalogues' (OPACs) which they are gradually replacing, both in technical development and their approach to client use scenarios. It traces the history of the OPAC/discovery system from its origins in the library automation of the 1960s through to the present and discusses the main technical standards which have formed its development. The article goes on to consider questions relating to the usability of electronic library catalogues and highlights semiotic and ethical issues inherent to their design. It concludes with reflections on the future of the OPAC/discovery system in an information universe apparently dominated by the internet search engine.

0.01586778 = product of:
  0.047603343 = sum of:
    0.047603343 = product of:
      0.095206685 = sum of:
        0.095206685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.095206685 = score(doc=1079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 1.2023 16:22:55

0.013600955 = product of:
  0.040802862 = sum of:
    0.040802862 = product of:
      0.081605725 = sum of:
        0.081605725 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081605725 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.013600955 = product of:
  0.040802862 = sum of:
    0.040802862 = product of:
      0.081605725 = sum of:
        0.081605725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081605725 = score(doc=1203,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1203, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1203)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2023, H.10, S.22-24

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study explores the use of PubPeer by the scholarly community, to understand the issues discussed in an online journal club, the disciplines most commented on, and the characteristics of the most prolific users. A sample of 39,985 posts about 24,779 publications were extracted from PubPeer in 2019 and 2020. These comments were divided into seven categories according to their degree of seriousness (Positive review, Critical review, Lack of information, Honest errors, Methodological flaws, Publishing fraud, and Manipulation). The results show that more than two-thirds of comments are posted to report some type of misconduct, mainly about image manipulation. These comments generate most discussion and take longer to be posted. By discipline, Health Sciences and Life Sciences are the most discussed research areas. The results also reveal "super commenters," users who access the platform to systematically review publications. The study ends by discussing how various disciplines use the site for different purposes.

0.0132371 = product of:
  0.0397113 = sum of:
    0.0397113 = product of:
      0.0794226 = sum of:
        0.0794226 = weight(_text_:publishing in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0794226 = score(doc=612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05019314 = queryNorm
            0.32387543 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi-layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.