Search (181 results, page 1 of 10)

0.03422232 = product of:
  0.15400043 = sum of:
    0.058355935 = weight(_text_:data in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058355935 = score(doc=2884,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
    0.095644504 = weight(_text_:processing in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095644504 = score(doc=2884,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.632523 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

COMPASS

Data processing

Subject

Data processing

0.029745825 = product of:
  0.1338562 = sum of:
    0.0933695 = weight(_text_:data in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0933695 = score(doc=6381,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.7905126 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
    0.040486705 = product of:
      0.08097341 = sum of:
        0.08097341 = weight(_text_:22 in 6381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08097341 = score(doc=6381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Object

Data Discman

Source

Zeit. Nr.xx vom ???, S.22

0.027784135 = product of:
  0.12502861 = sum of:
    0.10168624 = weight(_text_:germany in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10168624 = score(doc=250,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.4564889 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.023342375 = weight(_text_:data in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023342375 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.027502976 = product of:
  0.12376339 = sum of:
    0.076421775 = weight(_text_:data in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076421775 = score(doc=48,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.64702475 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
    0.047341615 = weight(_text_:processing in 48) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047341615 = score(doc=48,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 48, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=48)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Current hypertext systems have been widely and effectively used on relatively small data volumes. Explores the potential of database technology for aiding the implementation of hypertext systems holding very large amounts of complex data. Databases meet many requirements of the hypermedium: persistent data management, large volumes, data modelling, multi-level architecture with abstractions and views, metadata integrated with operational data, short-term transaction processing and high-level end-user languages for searching and updating data. Describes a system implementing the storage, retrieval and recall of trails through hypertext comprising textual complex objects (to illustrate the potential for the use of data bases). Discusses weaknesses in current database systems for handling the complex modelling required

0.026718602 = product of:
  0.12023371 = sum of:
    0.107854545 = weight(_text_:germany in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107854545 = score(doc=1195,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.4841796 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
    0.012379163 = weight(_text_:data in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012379163 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.10480815 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

0.023668647 = product of:
  0.10650891 = sum of:
    0.0660222 = weight(_text_:data in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660222 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.5589768 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
    0.040486705 = product of:
      0.08097341 = sum of:
        0.08097341 = weight(_text_:22 in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08097341 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Source

Advances in librarianship. 22(1998), S.59-75

0.022831112 = product of:
  0.20548001 = sum of:
    0.20548001 = weight(_text_:germany in 8415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20548001 = score(doc=8415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.9224389 = fieldWeight in 8415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8415)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.02279193 = product of:
  0.10256368 = sum of:
    0.073385715 = weight(_text_:germany in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073385715 = score(doc=1542,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.32944247 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
    0.029177967 = weight(_text_:data in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029177967 = score(doc=1542,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.

0.019644983 = product of:
  0.08840242 = sum of:
    0.05458698 = weight(_text_:data in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05458698 = score(doc=990,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.46216056 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
    0.03381544 = weight(_text_:processing in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381544 = score(doc=990,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The article employs deep log analysis (DLA) techniques, a more sophisticated form of transaction log analysis, to demonstrate what usage data can disclose about information seeking behaviour of virtual scholars - academics, and researchers. DLA works with the raw server log data, not the processed, pre-defined and selective data provided by journal publishers. It can generate types of analysis that are not generally available via proprietary web logging software because the software filters out relevant data and makes unhelpful assumptions about the meaning of the data. DLA also enables usage data to be associated with search/navigational and/or user demographic data, hence the name 'deep'. In this connection the usage of two digital journal libraries, those of EmeraldInsight, and Blackwell Synergy are investigated. The information seeking behaviour of nearly three million users is analyzed in respect to the extent to which they penetrate the site, the number of visits made, as well as the type of items and content they view. The users are broken down by occupation, place of work, type of subscriber ("Big Deal", non-subscriber, etc.), geographical location, type of university (old and new), referrer link used, and number of items viewed in a session.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.5, S.1345-1365

0.018731717 = product of:
  0.084292725 = sum of:
    0.051281624 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051281624 = score(doc=7375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 7375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7375)
    0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 7375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0330111 = score(doc=7375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 7375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7375)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Examines the degree and extent of bibliographic data of selected electronic journals in the national bibliographic utilities, and the means to provide access to them at individual libraries. The study was limited to networked electronic journals, and each title was searched in OCLC to determine its availability in a national database as well as its holdings libraries

0.016939184 = product of:
  0.076226324 = sum of:
    0.028884713 = weight(_text_:data in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028884713 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
    0.047341615 = weight(_text_:processing in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047341615 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3130829 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

Source

Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.6, S.1403-1418

0.015212042 = product of:
  0.06845419 = sum of:
    0.02063194 = weight(_text_:data in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063194 = score(doc=3016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
    0.047822252 = weight(_text_:processing in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047822252 = score(doc=3016,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3162615 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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).

0.014519301 = product of:
  0.06533685 = sum of:
    0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024758326 = score(doc=387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
    0.040578526 = weight(_text_:processing in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040578526 = score(doc=387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

DSSSL is ISO/IEC 10179 and international standard for the formatting and other processing of SGML documents. DSSSL was completed in Jan 96 after 8 years of development. From its inception, DSSSL was conceived as a companion standard to SGML, where SGML is a language for standardizing the way documents structures are represented without regard to its form or presentation. It ispossible to use SGML mark-up to represent formatting information, but this is discouraged, since doing so makes a document more difficult to reuse and reprocess. Reuse is generally a significant requirement for SGML data so it is not a good idea to pollute documents with presentational mark-up. Yet formatting of some nature is desirable, and sometimes critical, for all documents, and in some cases users want to interchange this formatting information in a standardized, non-proprietory format, DSSSL is key to enabling this interchange

0.013998535 = product of:
  0.06299341 = sum of:
    0.029177967 = weight(_text_:data in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029177967 = score(doc=3797,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
    0.03381544 = weight(_text_:processing in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381544 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favoring "Gold" OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the "total cost of publication"-comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs), and new administrative costs-for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the "total cost of publication," APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. "Hybrid" options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored, particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs.

0.013998535 = product of:
  0.06299341 = sum of:
    0.029177967 = weight(_text_:data in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029177967 = score(doc=741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
    0.03381544 = weight(_text_:processing in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381544 = score(doc=741,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.

0.012099418 = product of:
  0.05444738 = sum of:
    0.02063194 = weight(_text_:data in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063194 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
    0.03381544 = weight(_text_:processing in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381544 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Archives are an extremely valuable part of our cultural heritage since they represent the trace of the activities of a physical or juridical person in the course of their business. Despite their importance, the models and technologies that have been developed over the past two decades in the Digital Library (DL) field have not been specifically tailored to archives. This is especially true when it comes to formal and foundational frameworks, as the Streams, Structures, Spaces, Scenarios, Societies (5S) model is. Therefore, we propose an innovative formal model, called NEsted SeTs for Object hieRarchies (NESTOR), for archives, explicitly built around the concepts of context and hierarchy which play a central role in the archival realm. NESTOR is composed of two set-based data models: the Nested Sets Model (NS-M) and the Inverse Nested Sets Model (INS-M) that express the hierarchical relationships between objects through the inclusion property between sets. We formally study the properties of these models and prove their equivalence with the notion of hierarchy entailed by archives. We then use NESTOR to extend the 5S model in order to take into account the specific features of archives and to tailor the notion of digital library accordingly. This offers the possibility of opening up the full wealth of DL methods and technologies to archives. We demonstrate the impact of NESTOR on this problem through three example use cases.

Source

Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.6, S.1206-1240

0.011834323 = product of:
  0.053254455 = sum of:
    0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0330111 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.020243352 = product of:
      0.040486705 = sum of:
        0.040486705 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040486705 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, 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=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal

Date

22. 2.1999 16:56:06

0.0115314545 = product of:
  0.103783086 = sum of:
    0.103783086 = weight(_text_:germany in 1585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103783086 = score(doc=1585,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.46590203 = fieldWeight in 1585, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1585)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

LCSH

Electronic publishing / Germany

Subject

Electronic publishing / Germany

0.010627167 = product of:
  0.095644504 = sum of:
    0.095644504 = weight(_text_:processing in 7089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095644504 = score(doc=7089,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.632523 = fieldWeight in 7089, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7089)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

COMPASS

Image processing / Use of / Computers

Subject

Image processing / Use of / Computers

0.010520359 = product of:
  0.09468323 = sum of:
    0.09468323 = weight(_text_:processing in 1543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09468323 = score(doc=1543,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.6261658 = fieldWeight in 1543, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1543)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Information processing and management. 33(1997) no.5, S.583-696