Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010822834 = product of:
  0.021645669 = sum of:
    0.021645669 = product of:
      0.064937 = sum of:
        0.064937 = weight(_text_:12 in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064937 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.48894027 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.2017 18:12:03

0.0040585627 = product of:
  0.008117125 = sum of:
    0.008117125 = product of:
      0.024351375 = sum of:
        0.024351375 = weight(_text_:12 in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024351375 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.1833526 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A draft of Functional Requirements for Authority Records (FRAR) was made available for worldwide review on IFLANET from July through October 2005. The FRANAR Working Group received comments from 12 individuals and 13 institutions (including 6 national libraries and 3 national-level cataloguing committees). The working group expresses its appreciation to all who took the time to prepare comments. The comments received were compiled into a comments log which totaled 145 pages. Seven members of the Working Group met at the Koninklijke Bibliothek, The Hague, Netherlands, on December 9, 2005, to consider these comments and to start revising the draft to reflect decisions made in response to the comments. The group was able to deal with about two-thirds of the comments during the meeting and, since the December meeting has had a series of four conference calls to complete discussions of the remaining comments, with additional calls anticipated before the Seoul meetings.

0.0032528997 = product of:
  0.0065057995 = sum of:
    0.0065057995 = product of:
      0.019517398 = sum of:
        0.019517398 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019517398 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048018172 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = 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)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.