Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.027822888 = product of:
  0.06955722 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=7673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 7673, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=7673)
    0.035403162 = weight(_text_:22 in 7673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035403162 = score(doc=7673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 7673, 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=7673)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 studies to determine if structured abstracts offer any advantage to users in terms of whether they are easier to search. In study 1, using a specially prepared electronic database of abstracts in either their original format or the structured format, 52 users were asked to find the answers to 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts in traditional format followed by 2 questions for each of 8 abstracts set in the structured format. Time and error data were recorded automatically. In study 2, using a printed database, 56 users were asked to to find 5 abstracts that reprted a particular kind of study and then find 5 more references that reported another kind of study. In study 1 users performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts but there were some unexplainable practice effects. In study 2, the users again performed significantly faster and made fewer errors with structured abstracts. However, there were asymmetrical transfer effects: users who responded first to the structured abstracts responded more quickly to the following traditional abstracts than did those users who responded first to the traditional abstracts. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the hypothesis that it is easier for user to search structured abstracts than it is to search traditional abstracts

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.5, S.349-356

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.1, S.3-10

0.013524316 = product of:
  0.06762158 = sum of:
    0.06762158 = weight(_text_:it in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06762158 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44737396 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.009660226 = product of:
  0.04830113 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 2362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=2362,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 2362, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2362)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many writers of structured abstracts spend a good deal of time revising and polishing their texts - but is it worth it? Do readers notice the difference? In this paper we report three studies of readers using rating scales to judge (electronically) the clarity of an original and a revised abstract, both as a whole and in its constituent parts. In Study 1, with approximately 250 academics and research workers, we found some significant differences in favor of the revised abstract, but in Study 2, with approximately 210 information scientists, we found no significant effects. Pooling the data from Studies 1 and 2, however, in Study 3, led to significant differences at a higher probability level between the perception of the original and revised abstract as a whole and between the same components as found in Study 1. These results thus indicate that the revised abstract as a whole, as well as certain specific components of it, were judged significantly clearer than the original one. In short, the results of these experiments show that readers can and do perceive differences between original and revised texts - sometimes - and that therefore these efforts are worth the time and effort.

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=4411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4411, 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=4411)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.1, S.27-37

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2749)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2999,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2999, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2999)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=1140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many authors appear to think that most open access (OA) journals charge authors for their publications. This brief communication examines the basis for such beliefs and finds it wanting. Indeed, in this study of over 9,000 OA journals included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, only 28% charged authors for publishing in their journals. This figure, however, was highest in various disciplines in medicine (47%) and the sciences (43%) and lowest in the humanities (4%) and the arts (0%).

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2383)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to explore the possibilities of extending the use of structured abstracts (which use subheadings such as background, aims, participants method, results, conclusions) of the type often found in biomedical periodicals; to test whether or not such structured abstracts are more easily searched, comprehended and recalled than abstracts set in the traditional manner; and to examine readers' preferences for different typographic settings for structured abstracts. Results indicated: that it is possible to produce structured abstracts for periodical articles in the social sciences; and that such abstracts may be easier to read, search and recall than abstracts presented in the traditional manner. Suggests that abstracts use 6 subheadings (background, aims, method, results, conclusions, and, optionally, comment) and recommends that these subheadings are conveyed in bold capital letters and, ideally, set apart from the main text by printer's rules

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=4968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A text table is a simple table, with no or minimal chartlike elements, that is incorporated directly within a sentence. It can be very efficient in conveying quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) information that can be difficult to read within one or two sentences, but which is too simple to present within a regular table. Although this format has been used in the scientific literature, and indeed recommended in some sources, its effectiveness has not been studied in formal surveys. This article presents the results of one such survey in which three examples were considered. Scientists representing mathematics, statistics, and similar disciplines and scientists representing biology, agriculture, and similar disciplines were asked to participate in the survey; 189 representing the former and 201 representing the latter agreed. The results clearly showed for both groups, when the data presented were suitable for such a layout, that the text tables were much preferred to the original sentences. The main conclusion from this work, therefore, is that scientific authors should use text tables whenever appropriate.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 1325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=1325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 1325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1325)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Previous research assessing the effectiveness of structured abstracts has been limited in two respects. First, when comparing structured abstracts with traditional ones, investigators usually have rewritten the original abstracts, and thus confounded changes in the layout with changes in both the wording and the content of the text. Second, investigators have not always included the title of the article together with the abstract when asking participants to judge the quality of the abstracts, yet titles alert readers to the meaning of the materials that follow. The aim of this research was to redress these limitations. Three studies were carried out. Four versions of each of four abstracts were prepared. These versions consisted of structured/traditional abstracts matched in content, with and without titles. In Study 1, 64 undergraduates each rated one of these abstracts on six separate rating scales. In Study 2, 225 academics and research workers rated the abstracts electronically, and in Study 3, 252 information scientists did likewise. In Studies 1 and 3, the respondents rated the structured abstracts significantly more favorably than they did the traditional ones, but the presence or absence of titles had no effect on their judgments. In Study 2, no main effects were observed for structure or for titles. The layout of the text, together with the subheadings, contributed to the higher ratings of effectiveness for structured abstracts, but the presence or absence of titles had no clear effects in these experimental studies. It is likely that this spatial organization, together with the greater amount of information normally provided in structured abstracts, explains why structured abstracts are generally judged to be superior to traditional ones.