Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.067064844 = product of:
  0.1676621 = sum of:
    0.13990225 = weight(_text_:books in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13990225 = score(doc=3608,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.565117 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Object

Google books

Source

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/

0.04579376 = product of:
  0.2289688 = sum of:
    0.2289688 = weight(_text_:books in 1335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2289688 = score(doc=1335,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.9248898 = fieldWeight in 1335, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1335)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

With electronic book (e-book) sales and readership rising, are e-books positioned to replace print books? This study examines the preference for e-books and print books in the contexts of reading purpose, reading situation, and contextual variables such as age, gender, education level, race/ethnicity, income, community type, and Internet use. In addition, this study aims to identify factors that contribute to e-book adoption. Participants were a nationally representative sample of 2,986 people in the United States from the Reading Habits Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2011/December-2011--Reading-Habits.aspx). While the results of this study support the notion that e-books have firmly established a place in people's lives, due to their convenience of access, e-books are not yet positioned to replace print books. Both print books and e-books have unique attributes and serve irreplaceable functions to meet people's reading needs, which may vary by individual demographic, contextual, and situational factors. At this point, the leading significant predictors of e-book adoption are the number of books read, the individual's income, the occurrence and frequency of reading for research topics of interest, and the individual's Internet use, followed by other variables such as race/ethnicity, reading for work/school, age, and education.

0.041803796 = product of:
  0.20901898 = sum of:
    0.20901898 = weight(_text_:books in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20901898 = score(doc=529,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.84430504 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Increasingly, e-books are becoming alternatives to print books in academic libraries, thus providing opportunities to assess how well the use of e-books meets the requirements of academics. This study uses the task-technology fit (TTF) model to explore the interrelationships of e-books, the affordances offered by smart readers, the information needs of academics, and the "fit" of technology to tasks as well as performance. We propose that the adoption of e-books will be dependent on how academics perceive the fit of this new medium to the tasks they undertake as well as what added-value functionality is delivered by the information technology that delivers the content. The study used content analysis and an online survey, administered to the faculty in Medicine, Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales, to identify the attributes of a TTF construct of e-books in academic settings. Using exploratory factor analysis, preliminary findings confirmed annotation, navigation, and output as the core dimensions of the TTF construct. The results of confirmatory factor analysis using partial least squares path modeling supported the overall TTF model in reflecting significant positive impact of task, technology, and individual characteristics on TTF for e-books in academic settings; it also confirmed significant positive impact of TTF on individuals' performance and use, and impact of using e-books on individual performance. Our research makes two contributions: the development of an e-book TTF construct and the testing of that construct in a model validating the efficacy of the TTF framework in measuring perceived fit of e-books to academic tasks.

0.037014652 = product of:
  0.18507326 = sum of:
    0.18507326 = weight(_text_:books in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18507326 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.74757946 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

E-Books gewinnen in Bibliotheken immer stärker an Bedeutung. In Bezug auf Erwerbung, Einarbeitung und Benutzung gibt es bei E-Books im Vergleich zu klassischen Print-Büchern allerdings große Unterschiede, von denen einige in diesem Artikel erläutert werden. Grundlegende technische Enwicklungen, die bei der Verbreitung der eletronischen Bücher eine wichtige Rolle gespielt haben, darunter historische und heute übliche Dateiformate sowie eine Übersicht über die ersten Lesegeräte bis hin zum Kindle, mit dem der E-Book-Reader den Durchbruch auf dem Mainstream-Markt schaffte, werden vorgestellt. Ein kurzer Überblick über drei wichtige Problemfelder, mit denen gerade Bibliotheken im Zusammenhang mit der steigenden Verbreitung von E-Books zu kämpfen haben (Lizenzierung, Kosten und Datenschutz), rundet den Beitrag ab.

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=748,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 748, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=748)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article aims to understand the adoption of e-books by academic historians for the purpose of teaching and research. This includes an investigation into their knowledge about and perceived characteristics of this evolving research tool. The study relied on Rogers's model of the innovation-decision process to guide the development of an interview guide. Ten semistructured interviews were conducted with history faculty between October 2010 and December 2011. A grounded theory approach was employed to code and analyze the data. Findings about tradition, cost, teaching innovations, and the historical research process provide the background for designing learning opportunities for the professional development of historians and the academic librarians who work with them. While historians are open to experimenting with e-books, they are also concerned about the loss of serendipity in digital environments, the lack of availability of key resources, and the need for technological transparency. The findings show that Rogers's knowledge and persuasion stages are cyclical in nature, with scholars moving back and forth between these two stages. Participants interviewed were already weighing the five characteristics of the persuasion stage without having much knowledge about e-books. The study findings have implications for our understanding of the diffusion of innovations in academia: both print and digital collections are being used in parallel without one replacing the other.

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 2923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=2923,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 2923, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2923)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Der Internet-Riese darf sein Projekt "Google Books" wie gehabt fortsetzen. Der Oberste US-Gerichtshof lehnte die von einer Autorenvereingung geforderte Revision ab. Google teste mit seinem Projekt zwar die Grenzen der Fairness aus, handele aber rechtens, sagten die Richter.

Content

" Im Streit mit Google um Urheberrechte ist eine Gruppe von Buchautoren am Obersten US-Gericht gescheitert. Der Supreme Court lehnte es ab, die google-freundliche Entscheidung eines niederen Gerichtes zur Revision zuzulassen. In dem Fall geht es um die Online-Bibliothek "Google Books", für die der kalifornische Konzern Gerichtsunterlagen zufolge mehr als 20 Millionen Bücher digitalisiert hat. Durch das Projekt können Internet-Nutzer innerhalb der Bücher nach Stichworten suchen und die entsprechenden Textstellen lesen. Die drei zuständigen Richter entschieden einstimmig, dass in dem Fall zwar die Grenzen der Fairness ausgetestet würden, aber das Vorgehen von Google letztlich rechtens sei. Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe gefürchtet Die von dem Interessensverband Authors Guild angeführten Kläger sahen ihre Urheberrechte durch "Google Books" verletzt. Dazu gehörten auch prominente Künstler wie die Schriftstellerin und Dichterin Margaret Atwood. Google führte dagegen an, die Internet-Bibliothek kurbele den Bücherverkauf an, weil Leser dadurch zusätzlich auf interessante Werke aufmerksam gemacht würden. Google reagierte "dankbar" auf die Entscheidung des Supreme Court. Der Konzern hatte befürchtet, bei einer juristischen Niederlage Entschädigungen in Milliardenhöhe zahlen zu müssen."

Object

Google books

Source

https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/google-books-entscheidung-101.html

0.032381076 = product of:
  0.16190538 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=3226,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.

0.03225517 = product of:
  0.080637924 = sum of:
    0.052878078 = weight(_text_:books in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052878078 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.21359414 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Teil eines Special Issue: Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities. Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.03205563 = product of:
  0.16027816 = sum of:
    0.16027816 = weight(_text_:books in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16027816 = score(doc=560,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.64742285 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Seit 2009 werden an der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf (ULBD) Statistiken zu den Downloadzahlen der abonnierten E-Books geführt. Um sich diesen Statistiken und deren Aussagegehalt zu nähern, werden nach einer kurzen Einleitung zunächst die vielfältigen Probleme thematisiert, die im Bereich der Nutzungsstatistiken von Bibliotheken vorkommen. Danach werden die Statistiken der drei größten E-Book-Anbieter an der ULBD vorgestellt und diskutiert. Die bisher vorliegenden Daten von zwei Jahren erlauben dabei nur eine vorläufige Analyse.

0.029912358 = product of:
  0.1495618 = sum of:
    0.1495618 = weight(_text_:books in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1495618 = score(doc=4686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.60413545 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

British novelist E.M. Forster once complained that long books "are usually overpraised" because "the reader wishes to convince others and himself that he has not wasted his time." To test his theory we collected reader ratings for 737 books tagged as "classic literature" on Goodreads.com, a review aggregator with 80m members. The bias towards chunky tomes was substantial. Slim volumes of 100 to 200 pages scored only 3.87 out of 5, whereas those over 1,000 pages scored 4.19. Longer is better, say the readers.

0.029559745 = product of:
  0.14779872 = sum of:
    0.14779872 = weight(_text_:books in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14779872 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5970138 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.

0.023647794 = product of:
  0.11823897 = sum of:
    0.11823897 = weight(_text_:books in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11823897 = score(doc=3687,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.477611 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Man versetze sich für einen kurzen Augenblick in ein Wohnheimzimmer einer Studentin, die eine Hausarbeit in Politologie zum Thema "Der Sozialstaat in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1990 bis 2010" schreibt. Es ist zwei Uhr nachts, die Universitätsbibliothek hat geschlossen und die Studentin muss bis spätestens 14 Uhr am gleichen Tag die Arbeit einreichen. Verzweifelt sucht sie im Online-Katalog nach weiterer Literatur, um die Forschungsdiskussion in den Fußnoten weiter zu differenzieren. Sie findet auch die entsprechenden gedruckten Publikationen, auf die sie leider nicht zugreifen kann, da die Bibliothek geschlossen hat. Dabei hat "ihre" Universitätsbibliothek E-Books lizenziert, die sie allerdings nicht gefunden hat, da die E-Books nicht im Online-Katalog erfasst, sondern nur auf der Homepage der Einrichtung verlinkt sind. Bei der Rückgabe der Arbeit erfährt die Studentin, dass sie eine bessere Note erhalten hätte, wenn sie nur die Forschungsdiskussion differenziert dargestellt hätte. Eine vollständige Einbindung der lizenzierten E-Books im Online-Katalog ist der Wunsch vieler Bibliotheken. Insbesondere mit der vermehrten Verfügbarkeit konsortial oder national lizenzierter Sammlungen und Pakete ist das Angebot zusehends unübersichtlicher geworden und die bisherige Praxis, elektronische Dokumente parallel zu den gedruckten Exemplaren manuell formal und inhaltlich zu erschließen, stößt an organisatorische und ressourcenbedingte Grenzen. Einer direkten maschinellen Verarbeitung steht das Problem entgegen, dass die bibliografischen Metadaten der E-Books häufig im Format MARC 21 geliefert werden, die lokalen Bibliothekssysteme in der Regel aber mit den Formaten MAB2 und Pica arbeiten und Daten in anderen Formaten nicht verarbeiten können. Ein Lösungsansatz besteht darin, die bibliografischen Metadaten an zentraler Stelle zu konvertieren und zu harmonisieren und den Bibliotheken im Format MAB2 zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dieser Ansatz ist allerdings nur für statische E-BookSammlungen praktizierbar und durch den Aufwand der Konversion in "saubere" MAB2-Daten mit einem deutlichen zeitlichen Verzug verbunden.

0.019629175 = product of:
  0.09814587 = sum of:
    0.09814587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09814587 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 4324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=4324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 4324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4324)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Was bezahlt die ETH Bibliothek an Elsevier, Springer und Wiley? Die Antwort auf diese einfache Frage liegt nun nach gut 14 Monaten und einem Entscheid der ersten Rekursinstanz (EDÖB) vor. Werfen wir nun also einen Blick in diese nun erstmals öffentlich zugänglichen Daten (auch als XLSX). Die ETH-Bibliothek schlüsselte die Ausgaben wie von mir gewünscht in Datenbanken, E-Books und Zeitschriften auf.

0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 4.2015 17:22:03

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Design/methodology/approach - Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship. Findings - Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal - there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories. Practical implications - Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future. Research limitations/implications - This is an important area which requires close monitoring - the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new "free" scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome. Originality/value - The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.

0.01321952 = product of:
  0.0660976 = sum of:
    0.0660976 = weight(_text_:books in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0660976 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2669927 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research articles disseminate the knowledge produced by the scientific community. Access to this literature is crucial for researchers and the general public. Apparently, "bibliogifts" are available online for free from text-sharing platforms. However, little is known about such platforms. What is the size of the underlying digital libraries? What are the topics covered? Where do these documents originally come from? This article reports on a study of the Library Genesis platform (LibGen). The 25 million documents (42 terabytes) it hosts and distributes for free are mostly research articles, textbooks, and books in English. The article collection stems from isolated, but massive, article uploads (71%) in line with a "biblioleaks" scenario, as well as from daily crowdsourcing (29%) by worldwide users of platforms such as Reddit Scholar and Sci-Hub. By relating the DOIs registered at CrossRef and those cached at LibGen, this study reveals that 36% of all DOI articles are available for free at LibGen. This figure is even higher (68%) for three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. More research is needed to understand to what extent researchers and the general public have recourse to such text-sharing platforms and why.

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9.10.2017 15:48:22

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404

0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, 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=4198)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07