Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009717524 = product of:
  0.058305144 = sum of:
    0.058305144 = product of:
      0.11661029 = sum of:
        0.11661029 = weight(_text_:programs in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11661029 = score(doc=463,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.45288983 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field known as digital humanities (DH) is represented in various forms in the teaching and research practiced in iSchools. Building on the work of an iSchools organization committee charged with exploring digital humanities curricula, we present findings from a series of related studies exploring aspects of DH teaching, education, and research in iSchools, often in collaboration with other units and disciplines. Through a survey of iSchool programs and an online DH course registry, we investigate the various education models for DH training found in iSchools, followed by a detailed look at DH courses and curricula, explored through analysis of course syllabi and course descriptions. We take a brief look at collaborative disciplines with which iSchools cooperate on DH research projects or in offering DH education. Next, we explore DH careers through an analysis of relevant job advertisements. Finally, we offer some observations about the management and administrative challenges and opportunities related to offering a new iSchool DH program. Our results provide a snapshot of the current state of digital humanities in iSchools which may usefully inform the design and evolution of new DH programs, degrees, and related initiatives.

0.008028265 = product of:
  0.04816959 = sum of:
    0.04816959 = weight(_text_:wide in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816959 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Inscriptions are defined as traces of scientific research production that are embodied in material artifacts and media, which encompass a wide variety of nonverbal forms such as graphs, diagrams, and tables. Inscription serves as a fundamental rhetorical device in research outputs and practices. As many inscriptions are deeply rooted in a scientific research paradigm, they can be used to evaluate the level of scientificity of a scientific field. This is specifically helpful to understand the relationships between research traditions in digital humanities (DH), a highly cross-disciplinary between various humanities and scientific traditions. This paper presents a quantitative, community-focused examination of how inscriptions are used in English-language research articles in DH journals. We randomly selected 252 articles published between 2011 and 2020 from a representative DH journal list, and manually classified the inscriptions and author domains in these publications. We found that inscriptions have been increasingly used during the past decade, and their uses are more intensive in publications led by STEM authors comparing to other domains. This study offers a timely survey of the disciplinary landscape of DH from the perspective of inscriptions and sheds light on how different research approaches collaborate and combat in the field of DH.

0.005461648 = product of:
  0.03276989 = sum of:
    0.03276989 = weight(_text_:computer in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03276989 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=544,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 544, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=544)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0049276585 = product of:
  0.029565949 = sum of:
    0.029565949 = weight(_text_:web in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029565949 = score(doc=250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.

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.

0.0049276585 = product of:
  0.029565949 = sum of:
    0.029565949 = weight(_text_:web in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029565949 = score(doc=333,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.

0.003510376 = product of:
  0.021062255 = sum of:
    0.021062255 = product of:
      0.04212451 = sum of:
        0.04212451 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04212451 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 5.2021 12:43:05