Search (3661 results, page 1 of 184)

0.17469366 = product of:
  0.34938732 = sum of:
    0.34938732 = product of:
      0.69877464 = sum of:
        0.69877464 = weight(_text_:plos in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.69877464 = score(doc=2765,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            1.5545031 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

Object

PLOS ONE

0.15425551 = product of:
  0.30851102 = sum of:
    0.30851102 = sum of:
      0.26785842 = weight(_text_:plos in 89) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26785842 = score(doc=89,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 89, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=89)
      0.040652595 = weight(_text_:22 in 89) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040652595 = score(doc=89,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 89, 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=89)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates the potential impact of open access pricing on institutional journal expenditures in four subject fields at nine American colleges and universities. Three pricing models are evaluated: the conventional model (the current subscription model), the PLoS open access model (based on the fees currently charged by the Public Library of Science), and the equal-revenue open access model (which maintains current levels of total aggregate spending within each subject field). Because institutional disparities in publishing productivity are far greater than institutional disparities in library holdings, the shift from a subscription-based model to either open access model would bring dramatic cost savings for most colleges and universities. At the same time, a small number of institutions-the top research universities-would pay a far higher proportion of the total aggregate cost.

Date

3. 3.2007 19:44:22

0.099752724 = sum of:
  0.07942642 = product of:
    0.23827927 = sum of:
      0.23827927 = weight(_text_:3a in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23827927 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42397085 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.020326298 = product of:
    0.040652595 = sum of:
      0.040652595 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040652595 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.91.4940%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=dOXrUMeIDYHDtQahsIGACg&usg=AFQjCNHFWVh6gNPvnOrOS9R3rkrXCNVD-A&sig2=5I2F5evRfMnsttSgFF9g7Q&bvm=bv.1357316858,d.Yms.

Date

8. 1.2013 10:22:32

0.09470225 = product of:
  0.1894045 = sum of:
    0.1894045 = product of:
      0.378809 = sum of:
        0.378809 = weight(_text_:plos in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.378809 = score(doc=2497,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.84270346 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The organization of scientific papers typically follows a standardized pattern, the well-known IMRaD structure (introduction, methods, results, and discussion). Using the full text of 45,000 papers published in the PLoS series of journals as a case study, this paper investigates, from the viewpoint of bibliometrics, how references are distributed along the structure of scientific papers as well as the age of these cited references. Once the sections of articles are realigned to follow the IMRaD sequence, the position of cited references along the text of articles is invariant across all PLoS journals, with the introduction and discussion accounting for most of the references. It also provides evidence that the age of cited references varies by section, with older references being found in the methods and more recent references in the discussion. These results provide insight into the different roles citations have in the scholarly communication process.

0.09470225 = product of:
  0.1894045 = sum of:
    0.1894045 = product of:
      0.378809 = sum of:
        0.378809 = weight(_text_:plos in 4008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.378809 = score(doc=4008,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.84270346 = fieldWeight in 4008, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study provides evidence of data set mentions and citations in multiple disciplines based on a content analysis of 600 publications in PLoS One. We find that data set mentions and citations varied greatly among disciplines in terms of how data sets were collected, referenced, and curated. While a majority of articles provided free access to data, formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles. In addition, data reuse took place in less than 30% of the publications that used data, suggesting that researchers are still inclined to create and use their own data sets, rather than reusing previously curated data. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of how data sets are used in science and helps institutions and publishers make useful data policies.

Object

PLoS One

0.083127275 = sum of:
  0.06618869 = product of:
    0.19856606 = sum of:
      0.19856606 = weight(_text_:3a in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19856606 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.42397085 = queryWeight, product of:
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 3577, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3577)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.016938582 = product of:
    0.033877164 = sum of:
      0.033877164 = weight(_text_:22 in 3577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033877164 = score(doc=3577,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05000829 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3577, 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=3577)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

1. Agrarwissenschaften 1981. - 3. Allgemeine Geographie 2.1972. - 3a. Allgemeine Naturwissenschaften 1.1973. - 4. Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 2.1971. - 6. Allgemeines. 5.1983. - 7. Anglistik 3.1976. - 8. Astronomie, Geodäsie 4.1977. - 12. bio Biologie, bcp Biochemie-Biophysik, bot Botanik, zoo Zoologie 1981. - 13. Bremensien 3.1983. - 13a. Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 3.1975. - 14. Chemie 4.1977. - 14a. Elektrotechnik 1974. - 15 Ethnologie 2.1976. - 16,1. Geowissenschaften. Sachteil 3.1977. - 16,2. Geowissenschaften. Regionaler Teil 3.1977. - 17. Germanistik 6.1984. - 17a,1. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hil. - 17a,2. Geschichte. Teilsystematik his Neuere Geschichte. - 17a,3. Geschichte. Teilsystematik hit Neueste Geschichte. - 18. Humanbiologie 2.1983. - 19. Ingenieurwissenschaften 1974. - 20. siehe 14a. - 21. klassische Philologie 3.1977. - 22. Klinische Medizin 1975. - 23. Kunstgeschichte 2.1971. - 24. Kybernetik. 2.1975. - 25. Mathematik 3.1974. - 26. Medizin 1976. - 26a. Militärwissenschaft 1985. - 27. Musikwissenschaft 1978. - 27a. Noten 2.1974. - 28. Ozeanographie 3.1977. -29. Pädagogik 8.1985. - 30. Philosphie 3.1974. - 31. Physik 3.1974. - 33. Politik, Politische Wissenschaft, Sozialwissenschaft. Soziologie. Länderschlüssel. Register 1981. - 34. Psychologie 2.1972. - 35. Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1985. - 36. Rechtswissenschaften 1986. - 37. Regionale Geograpgie 3.1975. - 37a. Religionswissenschaft 1970. - 38. Romanistik 3.1976. - 39. Skandinavistik 4.1985. - 40. Slavistik 1977. - 40a. Sonstige Sprachen und Literaturen 1973. - 43. Sport 4.1983. - 44. Theaterwissenschaft 1985. - 45. Theologie 2.1976. - 45a. Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologie 1970. - 47. Volkskunde 1976. - 47a. Wirtschaftswissenschaften 1971 // Schlüssel: 1. Länderschlüssel 1971. - 2. Formenschlüssel (Kurzform) 1974. - 3. Personenschlüssel Literatur 5. Fassung 1968

0.07942642 = product of:
  0.15885285 = sum of:
    0.15885285 = product of:
      0.47655854 = sum of:
        0.47655854 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.47655854 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42397085 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.

0.073821545 = product of:
  0.14764309 = sum of:
    0.14764309 = product of:
      0.29528618 = sum of:
        0.29528618 = weight(_text_:plos in 3218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.29528618 = score(doc=3218,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.6568975 = fieldWeight in 3218, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3218)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"»Das ist der Teufel!«, polterte vor nicht allzu langer Zeit Harold Varmus, Mitbegründer der Public Library of Science (PLoS), als in einem Interview der Name von Derk Haank fiel. Der war damals Chef der Wissenschaftssparte Elsevier innerhalb der britisch-niederländischen Fachverlagsgruppe Reed Elsevier, die mit rund 1700 Magazinen Marktführer im Fachzeitschriftengeschäft ist. Der verbale Ausfall des Medizin-Nobelpreisträgers ist nur ein Indikator dafür, wie heftig der Konflikt in diesem Bereich inzwischen tobt - PLoS und Elsevier sind dabei bloß Stellvertreter zweier Gruppierungen, die sich unversöhnlich gegenüberstehen. Die Fachverlage, angeführt von einigen Großen wie Elsevier, Thomson oder Springer Science+Business Media, wollen am klassischen »Leser-zahlt«-Modell wissenschaftlicher Informationsverbreitung festhalten. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Non-Profit-Initiativen mit ihrem Gegenentwurf des Open-Access-Modells, allen voran PLoS, DOAJ oder Biomed Central. Sie gewähren freien Zugang zu ihren im Internet publizierten Journalen - inzwischen sind es einige tausend. Zahlen müssen in diesem Modell die Wissenschaftler, die ihre Arbeiten veröffentlichen wollen. Die Idee des Open Access ist an sich nichts Neues, stellte doch schon Anfang der 1990er Jahre der amerikanische Physiker Paul Ginsparg mit dem Internetserver Arxiv.org eine Plattform für frei zugängliche Vorabveröffentlichungen bereit. Der jetzt einsetzende Boom von OpenAccess-Journalen hat seine Ursache in der so genannten »Krise der wissenschaftlichen Informationsversorgung« - der seit Jahren wachsenden Kluft zwischen Bibliotheken-Budgets und den Preisen wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften. Diese sind dem »Library Journal« zufolge innerhalb der letzten 15 Jahre um durchschnittlich 215 Prozent gestiegen. Einzelne Journale kosten die Büchereien inzwischen mehrere tausend Euro im Jahr. Das Geld fließt in die Kassen der hoch profitablen Verlage: So wies etwa Elsevier im Geschäftsbericht 2003 eine Umsatzrendite von 33,8 Prozent aus.
Problematisch ist dabei, dass die wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten, die in den Fachmagazinen veröffentlicht werden, meist im Rahmen staatlich geförderter Forschungsprojekte entstanden sind. Zugespitzt ausgedrückt: Die Fachverlage profitieren von Forschungsergebnissen, für die sie selbst keinen Cent bezahlt haben, und verkaufen sie anschließend für viel Geld wieder an die Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen zurück - zu Lasten des Steuerzahlers. Die Bibliotheken reagieren angesichts dieser Situation mit dem Rotstift und bestellen reihenweise Zeitschriften ab - die Leid Tragenden sind Studenten und Wissenschaftler. Die hohen Kosten, die auch beim Online-Bezug der Journale anfallen, rechtfertigen die Verleger mit dem Aufwand für das Layout und dem so genannten Peer-Review-Verfahren. Hier wacht ein Gremium von Wissenschaftlern, das Editorial Board, darüber, dass nur solche Artikel Eingang in das Magazin finden, die hohen wissenschaftlichen Ansprüchen genügen. Die Argumente wirken jedoch vorgeschoben: Meist sind die Board-Mitglieder Wissenschaftler, die ihre Funktion ehrenamtlich ausüben. Und die hohen Anforderungen, die von den klassischen Journalen hinsichtlich Artikel und Grafiken an die Autoren gestellt werden, lassen den großen Layout-Aufwand der Verlage zumindest fraglich erscheinen. Es sei ungerecht, den Autor zur Kasse zu bitten, die Kosten also vom Konsumenten auf den Produzenten zu verlagern, lautet ein weiteres Standardargument gegen Open Access. In der Regel trägt aber nicht der Wissenschaftler selbst diese Kosten, sondern die Institution, für die er forscht. Diese spart im Gegenzug die Abonnements der herkömmlichen Zeitschriften ein. Das klingt nach rechter Tasche, linker Tasche. Doch nach einer Studie der Bank BNP Paribas soll es die Universitäten unterm Strich tatsächlich billiger kommen. Funktionieren wird es allerdings nur, wenn sich Open Access schnell durchsetzt und viele Journale auf das neue Geschäftsmodell umstellen. Sonst zahlen die Bibliotheken doppelt - und damit drauf. Auch in den traditionellen Fachzeitschriften können die Autoren im Übrigen keineswegs immer kostenfrei publizieren. Für »Extras« wie Fotos oder Grafiken werden oft hohe Zuzahlungen fällig. Zum Beispiel verlangt das renommierte Fachblatt »Cell« 1000 US-Dollar für die erste Abbildung und 250 Dollar für jede weitere - bei PLoS dagegen sind es einmalig 1500 Dollar pro Artikel.
Wie steht es mit der Qualitätssicherung in Open-Access-Journalen? Dem »Autor-zahlt«-Modell von vornherein Gefälligkeitsveröffentlichungen zu unterstellen, wäre unfair. Dennoch besteht diese Gefahr, wenn diejenigen, die Artikel in einer Zeitschrift veröffentlichen wollen, gleichzeitig die Geldgeber sind. Dagegen spricht jedoch, dass sich Open-Access-Magazine ebenfalls unabhängiger Experten für das Peer Review bedienen. Außerdem streben auch sie nach einem möglichst hohen Renommee, das sich danach bemisst, wie oft und wo ein Journal zitiert wird - und das erreicht man nicht durch minderwertige Beiträge. Vor denen sind übrigens auch klassische Fachzeitschriften nicht gefeit - so muss immer wieder einmal ein zweifelhafter Artikel zurückgezogen werden. Dagegen bewies »PLoS Biology« schon in seiner ersten Ausgabe, dass sich auch in einem Open-Access-Magazin Hochkarätiges findet: Der Artikel einer Forschergruppe um Miguel Nicolelis über ein Gehirn-Maschine-Interface wurde am ersten Tag so oft abgerufen, dass die Server in die Knie gingen. Bleibt abzuwarten, wann die Verlagsriesen auf den Open-Access-Boom von PLoS & Co. reagieren werden. Zwar stellten sich die Chefs von Reed-Elsevier, Morris Tabaksblat und Chrispin Davis, im Geschäftsbericht 2003 noch demonstrativ hinter das klassische Geschäftsmodell. Sie kündigten aber auch an, das »Autor-zahlt«-Modell zu beobachten und zu investieren, »wo Neuerungen nachweisbaren und nachhaltigen Erfolg« für die Wissenschaft brächten. Übernehmen die Großverlage tatsächlich das Open-Access-Geschäftsmodell, hätte Varmus sein Ziel erreicht. Doch Zweifel bleiben. Im Unterschied zu Non-Profit-Organisationen wie PLoS wollen die Großverlage Gewinn machen und haben zudem in den letzten Jahren Millionen in Onlineplattformen und in die Digitalisierung ihrer riesigen Archive investiert. Diese Summen gilt es wieder hereinzuholen - notfalls durch überhöhte Abdruckgebühren für die Autoren. Das wäre dann ein Pyrrhussieg, und Varmus hätte abermals Grund, verbal den Teufel zu bemühen."

0.06707336 = product of:
  0.13414672 = sum of:
    0.13414672 = product of:
      0.26829344 = sum of:
        0.26829344 = weight(_text_:22 in 219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26829344 = score(doc=219,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 219, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.06707336 = product of:
  0.13414672 = sum of:
    0.13414672 = product of:
      0.26829344 = sum of:
        0.26829344 = weight(_text_:22 in 1386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26829344 = score(doc=1386,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 1386, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=1386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.06707336 = product of:
  0.13414672 = sum of:
    0.13414672 = product of:
      0.26829344 = sum of:
        0.26829344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26829344 = score(doc=2102,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1751205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            1.5320505 = fieldWeight in 2102, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.21875 = fieldNorm(doc=2102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1998 20:02:22

0.066964604 = product of:
  0.13392921 = sum of:
    0.13392921 = product of:
      0.26785842 = sum of:
        0.26785842 = weight(_text_:plos in 5219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26785842 = score(doc=5219,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 5219, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5219)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Publishing articles in high-impact English journals is difficult for scholars around the world, especially for non-native English-speaking scholars (NNESs), most of whom struggle with proficiency in English. To uncover the differences in English scientific writing between native English-speaking scholars (NESs) and NNESs, we collected a large-scale data set containing more than 150,000 full-text articles published in PLoS between 2006 and 2015. We divided these articles into three groups according to the ethnic backgrounds of the first and corresponding authors, obtained by Ethnea, and examined the scientific writing styles in English from a two-fold perspective of linguistic complexity: (a) syntactic complexity, including measurements of sentence length and sentence complexity; and (b) lexical complexity, including measurements of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. The observations suggest marginal differences between groups in syntactical and lexical complexity.

0.066964604 = product of:
  0.13392921 = sum of:
    0.13392921 = product of:
      0.26785842 = sum of:
        0.26785842 = weight(_text_:plos in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26785842 = score(doc=5913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.06618869 = product of:
  0.13237739 = sum of:
    0.13237739 = product of:
      0.39713213 = sum of:
        0.39713213 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39713213 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42397085 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06324322 = product of:
  0.12648644 = sum of:
    0.12648644 = product of:
      0.3794593 = sum of:
        0.3794593 = weight(_text_:object's in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3794593 = score(doc=819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4953385 = queryWeight, product of:
              9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.7660606 = fieldWeight in 819, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              9.905128 = idf(docFreq=5, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=819)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An approach to establishing a relationship between knowing, informing and representing, using aspects of linguistic theory to clarify semantic theory as the basis for an overall theory of meaning. Linguistic knowledge is based on a conceptual matrix which defines convergence / divergence of the categories used to specify an object's parameters; work on the analysis of discourse emphasisis the social dimension of meaning, which is the basis of the theory of acts and speech. The evaluation criteria used to determine questions about the possibility of knowledge are necessarily decisive, this opens up promising perspectives if formulating a relationship between conceptual and pragmatic approaches

0.05580384 = product of:
  0.11160768 = sum of:
    0.11160768 = product of:
      0.22321536 = sum of:
        0.22321536 = weight(_text_:plos in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22321536 = score(doc=3328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using 3 years of the Journal Citation Reports (2011, 2012, and 2013), indicators of transitions in 2012 (between 2011 and 2013) were studied using methodologies based on entropy statistics. Changes can be indicated at the level of journals using the margin totals of entropy production along the row or column vectors, but also at the level of links among journals by importing the transition matrices into network analysis and visualization programs (and using community-finding algorithms). Seventy-four journals were flagged in terms of discontinuous changes in their citations, but 3,114 journals were involved in "hot" links. Most of these links are embedded in a main component; 78 clusters (containing 172 journals) were flagged as potential "hot spots" emerging at the network level. An additional finding was that PLoS ONE introduced a new communication dynamic into the database. The limitations of the methodology were elaborated using an example. The results of the study indicate where developments in the citation dynamics can be considered as significantly unexpected. This can be used as heuristic information, but what a "hot spot" in terms of the entropy statistics of aggregated citation relations means substantively can be expected to vary from case to case.

0.05580384 = product of:
  0.11160768 = sum of:
    0.11160768 = product of:
      0.22321536 = sum of:
        0.22321536 = weight(_text_:plos in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22321536 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.05580384 = product of:
  0.11160768 = sum of:
    0.11160768 = product of:
      0.22321536 = sum of:
        0.22321536 = weight(_text_:plos in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22321536 = score(doc=3633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to systematically assess sources' (e.g., journals and proceedings) impact in knowledge trading. While there have been efforts at evaluating different aspects of journal impact, the dimension of knowledge trading is largely absent. To fill the gap, this study employed a set of trading-based indicators, including weighted degree centrality, Shannon entropy, and weighted betweenness centrality, to assess sources' trading impact. These indicators were applied to several time-sliced source-to-source citation networks that comprise 33,634 sources indexed in the Scopus database. The results show that several interdisciplinary sources, such as Nature, PLoS One, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Science, and several specialty sources, such as Lancet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and New England Journal of Medicine, have demonstrated their marked importance in knowledge trading. Furthermore, this study also reveals that, overall, sources have established more trading partners, increased their trading volumes, broadened their trading areas, and diversified their trading contents over the past 15 years from 1997 to 2011. These results inform the understanding of source-level impact assessment and knowledge diffusion.

0.05580384 = product of:
  0.11160768 = sum of:
    0.11160768 = product of:
      0.22321536 = sum of:
        0.22321536 = weight(_text_:plos in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22321536 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

0.05580384 = product of:
  0.11160768 = sum of:
    0.11160768 = product of:
      0.22321536 = sum of:
        0.22321536 = weight(_text_:plos in 5963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.22321536 = score(doc=5963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4495164 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05000829 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 5963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments." The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.