Search (427 results, page 1 of 22)

0.08185833 = product of:
  0.20464583 = sum of:
    0.1731337 = weight(_text_:list in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1731337 = score(doc=975,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.6872623 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
    0.03151213 = weight(_text_:of in 975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03151213 = score(doc=975,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 975, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=975)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A variety of peer reviewed electronic scholarly periodicals are becoming available on the Internet. List a selection of electronic periodicals so available and the advantages of this mode of publishing

0.06484718 = product of:
  0.10807862 = sum of:
    0.057711232 = weight(_text_:list in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057711232 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22908744 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.02289303 = weight(_text_:of in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02289303 = score(doc=250,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.02747436 = weight(_text_:subject in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02747436 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

0.058023144 = product of:
  0.096705236 = sum of:
    0.020760437 = weight(_text_:of in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020760437 = score(doc=2593,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.059483737 = weight(_text_:subject in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059483737 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.016461061 = product of:
      0.032922123 = sum of:
        0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922123 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635

0.05457222 = product of:
  0.13643055 = sum of:
    0.115422465 = weight(_text_:list in 5944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.115422465 = score(doc=5944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.45817488 = fieldWeight in 5944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5944)
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 5944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=5944,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5944, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5944)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Provides information for people who want (or need) to know what the SGML is and want to make use of it. Gives a fairly detailed description of what SGML is, why it exists, and provides a list of SGML players who are actively involved in either developing tools, providing services, offering consultancy or enganging in research for SGML. Describes the SGML work undertaken at Hatfield Polytechnic as part of Project Quartet funded by the British Library Research and Development Dept. The results and findings conclude that SGML forms a strong backbone for present and future document handling systems

0.05457222 = product of:
  0.13643055 = sum of:
    0.115422465 = weight(_text_:list in 8743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.115422465 = score(doc=8743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.45817488 = fieldWeight in 8743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8743)
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 8743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=8743,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 8743, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8743)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This is a suggested reference and reading list, whose purpose is to provide librarians with a bibliography of basic sources for understanding how scholars in the humanities use electronic texts and computer-based methods of analysis, for identifying and locating electronic texts and related resources, and for addressing some of the issues involved in the production, distribution and use of electronic texts

0.052662753 = product of:
  0.08777125 = sum of:
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=4635,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.048568267 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048568267 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.016461061 = product of:
      0.032922123 = sum of:
        0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922123 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628

0.0494032 = product of:
  0.12350801 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=8416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
    0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 8416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02251335 = score(doc=8416,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 8416, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8416)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reviews the 6 principal forces driving electronic information publishing forward: volume of information; need to search for information; information richness; demands of management and distribution of information; low cost technologies (such as CD-ROM) and environmental impact making paper less attractive. Lists the corresponding forces inhibiting this change from print to electronic publishing; habit; incompatible standards; incompatible authoring processes; display incompatibilities; and portability limitations. Concludes with a list of key areas emerging for electronic information on CD-ROM; reference materials; catalogues; bibliographic and demographic data; merketing materials; educational materials; and records (replacing microfilm and microfiche)

0.048618577 = product of:
  0.12154644 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=5913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
    0.020551786 = weight(_text_:of in 5913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551786 = score(doc=5913,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5913, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5913)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes a user study where the popularity of each node in a hypertext dtabase was presented with the links leading to that node and where popularity was computed by counting the number of users who had previously visited the node. Users clearly incorporated popularity information in their decisions: compares their browsing patterns with a control group for whom the popularity information was not provided. One possible use of popularity can be offset the previously documented trait of users to over-select items near the top or bottom of a linear list. Documents that popularity information affects user behaviour, but ages not necessarily advocate its use

0.043546647 = product of:
  0.072577745 = sum of:
    0.02177373 = weight(_text_:of in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02177373 = score(doc=2646,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.016461061 = product of:
      0.032922123 = sum of:
        0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922123 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.03795239 = product of:
  0.09488097 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=461,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Series

JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH): A. Landscapes of DH

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.2, S.172-187

0.031374592 = product of:
  0.07843648 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=968,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=968,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 968, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=968)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes the eidtorial thinking and planning behind the preparation of the New Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) for publication in print and electronic form. Focuses on issues arising from the attempt to capture 'clean' information from literary prose. Details the characters of the DNB, access through indexes, core data, clean data, indexing the subject, indexing the text, and editorial tracking

Object

Dictionary of National Biography

0.028275374 = product of:
  0.070688434 = sum of:
    0.029476898 = weight(_text_:of in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029476898 = score(doc=3533,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Design of peer-review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer-review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer-review processes, a variety of new peer-review processes have emerged that manage the trade-offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer-review process within that framework.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.957-971

0.027731482 = product of:
  0.0693287 = sum of:
    0.020760437 = weight(_text_:of in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020760437 = score(doc=1226,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
    0.048568267 = weight(_text_:subject in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048568267 = score(doc=1226,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.026936008 = product of:
  0.06734002 = sum of:
    0.026128478 = weight(_text_:of in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128478 = score(doc=4478,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 4478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=4478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4478)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Presents a simple notation for describing the internal structure of a document and contrasts it with other more conventional notations in particular those related to subject classification systems, and those for bibliographic purposes, codes such as those of SGML. Such a notation should assist the science of human messaging through: permitting hypotheses to be more readily expressed and/or tested concerning document structure, and facilitating the formation of taxonomies of documents based on their structures. Such a notation should also be of practical value in contributing to document specification, building and testing, and possibly also contribute to new generations of information retrieval systems which link retrieval against record databases to the search systems internal to specific documents. The notation is at present limited to linear documents, but extensions to it to accomodate documents in non linear form (e.g. hypertext documents) and/or existing in physically distributed form, could usefully be constructed. Provides examples of the application of the notation

Source

Journal of documentation. 51(1995) no.4, S.339-359

0.026226345 = product of:
  0.06556586 = sum of:
    0.043283425 = weight(_text_:list in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043283425 = score(doc=1222,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17181557 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 1222) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=1222,freq=64.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1222, product of:
          8.0 = tf(freq=64.0), with freq of:
            64.0 = termFreq=64.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1222)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

CrossRef, the only full-blown application of the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®) System to date, is now a little over a year old. What started as a cooperative effort among publishers and technologists to prototype DOI-based linking of citations in e-journals evolved into an independent, non-profit enterprise in early 2000. We have made considerable headway during our first year, but there is still much to be done. When CrossRef went live with its collaborative linking service last June, it had enabled reference links in roughly 1,100 journals from a member base of 33 publishers, using a functional prototype system. The DOI-X prototype was described in an article published in D-Lib Magazine in February of 2000. On the occasion of CrossRef's first birthday as a live service, this article provides a non-technical overview of our progress to date and the major hurdles ahead. The electronic medium enriches the research literature arena for all players -- researchers, librarians, and publishers -- in numerous ways. Information has been made easier to discover, to share, and to sell. To take a simple example, the aggregation of book metadata by electronic booksellers was a huge boon to scholars seeking out obscure backlist titles, or discovering books they would never otherwise have known to exist. It was equally a boon for the publishers of those books, who saw an unprecedented surge in sales of backlist titles with the advent of centralized electronic bookselling. In the serials sphere, even in spite of price increases and the turmoil surrounding site licenses for some prime electronic content, libraries overall are now able to offer more content to more of their patrons. Yet undoubtedly, the key enrichment for academics and others navigating a scholarly corpus is linking, and in particular the linking that takes the reader out of one document and into another in the matter of a click or two. Since references are how authors make explicit the links between their work and precedent scholarship, what could be more fundamental to the reader than making those links immediately actionable? That said, automated linking is only really useful from a research perspective if it works across publications and across publishers. Not only do academics think about their own writings and those of their colleagues in terms of "author, title, rough date" -- the name of the journal itself is usually not high on the list of crucial identifying features -- but they are oblivious as to the identity of the publishers of all but their very favorite books and journals.
Citation linking is thus also a huge benefit to journal publishers, because, as with electronic bookselling, it drives readers to their content in yet another way. In step with what was largely a subscription-based economy for journal sales, an "article economy" appears to be emerging. Journal publishers sell an increasing amount of their content on an article basis, whether through document delivery services, aggregators, or their own pay-per-view systems. At the same time, most research-oriented access to digitized material is still mediated by libraries. Resource discovery services must be able to authenticate subscribed or licensed users somewhere in the process, and ensure that a given user is accessing as a default the version of an article that their library may have already paid for. The well-known "appropriate copy" issue is addressed below. Another benefit to publishers from including outgoing citation links is simply the value they can add to their own journals. Publishers carry out the bulk of the technological prototyping and development that has produced electronic journals and the enhanced functionality readers have come to expect. There is clearly competition among them to provide readers with the latest features. That a number of publishers would agree to collaborate in the establishment of an infrastructure for reference linking was thus by no means predictable. CrossRef was incorporated in January of 2000 as a collaborative venture among 12 of the world's top scientific and scholarly publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, to enable cross-publisher reference linking throughout the digital journal literature. The founding members were Academic Press, a Harcourt Company; the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science); American Institute of Physics (AIP); Association for Computing Machinery (ACM); Blackwell Science; Elsevier Science; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); Kluwer Academic Publishers (a Wolters Kluwer Company); Nature; Oxford University Press; Springer-Verlag; and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Start-up funds for CrossRef were provided as loans from eight of the original publishers.

0.024564503 = product of:
  0.061411254 = sum of:
    0.0270683 = weight(_text_:of in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0270683 = score(doc=4185,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.619-622

0.022419048 = product of:
  0.05604762 = sum of:
    0.02970992 = weight(_text_:of in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02970992 = score(doc=7245,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.026337698 = product of:
      0.052675396 = sum of:
        0.052675396 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052675396 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.022265619 = product of:
  0.055664044 = sum of:
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=4551,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4551, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4551)
    0.032922123 = product of:
      0.065844245 = sum of:
        0.065844245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065844245 = score(doc=4551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4551, 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=4551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Considers dangers posed by the growth of electronic publishing. These fall into 3 groups: dangers to reputation, dangers to intellectual property, and dangers to organizational integrity. Discusses these danger areas and suggests a number of defences

Date

22. 7.1996 21:39:19

0.022265619 = product of:
  0.055664044 = sum of:
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=4988,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
    0.032922123 = product of:
      0.065844245 = sum of:
        0.065844245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065844245 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, 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=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Discusses the changing forces of demand, supply and technical change in the field of academic publishing. Covers electronic publishing; the UnCover document delivery service from B.H. Blackwell; the work of Blackwell Science and Blackwell Publishers and electronic pilot studies

Source

IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22

0.021615213 = product of:
  0.054038033 = sum of:
    0.019695079 = weight(_text_:of in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019695079 = score(doc=3954,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.